Just another Freethought Blogs site

Ally Fogg

Ally Fogg is a UK-based freelance writer and journalist, whose day job includes a weekly column on Comment is Free at www.guardian.co.uk and miscellaneous scribbles elsewhere, mostly on issues of UK politics and social justice. This blog is dedicated to exploring gender issues from a male perspective, unshackled from any dogmatic ideology. Ally is often accused of being a feminist lapdog and an anti-feminist quisling; a misogynist and a misandrist; a mangina and a closet MRA, and concludes that the only thing found in pigeonholes is pigeon shit. He can be contacted most easily through www.allyfogg.co.uk or @allyfogg on Twitter. About this blog

EVENTS

Why I am not a feminist

SERIES: FROM THE HETPAT ARCHIVES

(First published 26/06/12)

I had a lengthy chat with a producer from BBC Woman’s Hour the other day, about a feature they ran this morning on some men’s reluctance to identify as feminists. I missed out on the chance of a free BBC croissant in the end. This may have been partly down to my inconsiderate refusal to live in London like normal people, but in truth I think I lost her when I started channelling Nina Power on the reconstruction of feminism as a neoliberal capitalist accessory and the interchangeability of emancipation and consumption in the dominant discourse. With hindsight I should have stuck to the question of whether little girls can pee standing up.

The conversation did however give me pause to think about a fairly key question. I’m often told I am a feminist by others, in roughly equal measure as a compliment and an insult. I take it in the intended spirit either way. If others think I am a feminist so be it, but it is not how I define myself. By coincidence, this morning also saw the launch of a new blog edited by Joseph Stashko, entitled Meninism, exploring the place of men in the movement. I had the honour of the first piece on there, in which I argue that the feminist trope “the patriarchy hurts men too” is not the solution to male-specific gender issues. The tl;dr version would be this: Even if patriarchy does hurt men too, that’s for men to realise and address; we can’t leave it to women and feminism to solve it for us.

Feminism is and should be a movement of women, for women and led by women. While any man can offer a voice of agreement, it is not for us to define the issues and prescribe the solutions. And with whom should we agree? Feminism is an impossibly diverse ideology, riven with internal argument and debate. To be a full participant in the movement, one needs to be able to take sides in those disputes. That puts a man in the impossible position of either telling half the feminists that you’re wrong and I know better, or else smiling and saying “well you both make very good points” like a liberal vicar trying to intervene in a pub fight.

If I’m forced to define my own politics, it would be in broad terms as a believer in social justice and human rights. From that perspective, I would have no qualms about telling a feminist that I think she is wrong about an issue. To take one example, there are many feminists who argue that there should be no prosecutions of women who make false allegations of rape. In my opinion, this is a patently unjust position, not from the perspective of feminism, but from the perspective of justice. A man who is grievously and maliciously wronged by such an act deserves redress, and others who may be so wronged deserve the protection of a legal deterrent. I can make that point more strongly and effectively if it is not prefaced by three little words ‘As a feminist…’ Indeed, I think a man who argues any point with those words is likely to find himself hoisted by the goolies, and probably deservedly so.

By identifying as a feminist, I would have a lot to lose, and little to gain. My stance does not preclude supporting feminists where I support their aims. For example, I actively supported the Slutwalk movement last year, not because I am a feminist, but because I agreed with the fundamental aims; I applauded their inclusive approach to men and trans people; and I admired the fusion of assertive female sexuality with demands for bodily autonomy and personal safety. I don’t need to define as a feminist to say that. On the contrary I’d like to think my words carry slightly more weight precisely because I do not.

Over the years I’ve been called feminist, pro-feminist and a ‘mangina’, I’ve been called anti-feminist and misogynist, and sometimes those allegations have all come in response to the same piece. Once there was a time when I cared about how my views were labelled by others, these days I mostly just eye them with curiosity. I’ll try to call the issues as I see them, and you can call me what you like. Deal?

Addendum 28/05/13

Another thing that has happened a couple of times recently is being called either a “good ally” or a “bad ally” by feminists. There was a long period of my life when I would have actively described myself as a feminist ally. I now prefer not to.

The reasons why are much as above, but perhaps slightly more to do with personal psychology. Being pegged as a good or bad ally feels very like having cookies offered or snatched away, as if my ideological purity is being subtly policed.

I appreciate compliments and I appreciate thoughtful criticism. I also appreciate cookies, big chocolatey ones, feel free to send some of those my way. But lest there be any doubt, my name is Ally (the standard Scots diminutive of Alistair.)

“Feminism is and should be a movement of women, for women and led by women. While any man can offer a voice of agreement, it is not for us to define the issues and prescribe the solutions”

why not? I would have thought a man who has extensively studied the sociology, philosophy and science of issues gender related would be in a much better position to understand and address the problems facing women, better than most actual women?

Without a shadow of a doubt, I identify as a feminist. Part of that was because I was raised by a woman who loved feminism, and part of it is that I am raising two daughters. Feminism, at its core, is about promoting women. There are certainly those who like to concentrate on gender theories, and women’s studies, and all sorts of other wonderful things, but that doesn’t change the basic mission of feminism.

The reasons why are much as above, but perhaps slightly more to do with personal psychology. Being pegged as a good or bad ally feels very like having cookies offered or snatched away, as if my ideological purity is being subtly policed.
Which is odd considering that feminists have no problem preaching at people (usually men) about how men shouldn’t be in it for the cookies. I guess its wrong if we reach for the cookies but its okay for them to try to dangle them over our heads?

Feminism is and should be a movement of women, for women and led by women. While any man can offer a voice of agreement, it is not for us to define the issues and prescribe the solutions.
Side question. Would you say the same about women in regards to a movement for men and by men?

And with whom should we agree? Feminism is an impossibly diverse ideology, riven with internal argument and debate. To be a full participant in the movement, one needs to be able to take sides in those disputes. That puts a man in the impossible position of either telling half the feminists that you’re wrong and I know better, or else smiling and saying “well you both make very good points” like a liberal vicar trying to intervene in a pub fight.
I just don’t see that kind of flexibility for men in feminism.

Excellent piece. A lot of what you said is my response to a range of questions. I think all people are people, and I don’t think it’s a particularly radical idea. Does supporting equal rights for all under the law and equal treatment for all not only under the law but socially as well have no meaning if I don’t use the proper title?

Are you not really in favor of such things if you don’t declare yourself the proper “ist”? Some, (not many, thankfully) women who identify as feminists are horribly transphobic. is that forgiven because they take the proper label? I hope not. Bullshit’s bullshit regardless of the label you ascribe for yourself.

same thing when people ask me if I’m atheist or not. Why does it even matter?

Even though people have claimed I’m an anti-feminist and rape-enabler, misogynist, sexist and worse, I have said many times I have nothing against feminism. At its core, feminism is equality for women to men and as someone who believes everyone deserves the same equal opportunities, how can I object to that? Well, I don’t and I haven’t. I endorse it completely.

But then you have the other qualities of feminism that are not as unambiguous and not as agreeable, and it’s on these grounds I break with feminism – and it’s on these same grounds I don’t consider myself an MRA either. In my opinion, both the MRM and feminism have lost sight what they’re really fighting for and thus have become unwieldy and counterproductive. Case in point, many feminists consider MRA’s to be persona non grata and many MRA’s consider feminists likewise, and in their feud that should be spent combating the real enemy, they quibble like children. Class, wealth, the system which is responsible for turning them at eachother’s throats. That’s the real enemy.

So, to rid myself of dogma and misunderstandings, I cut through the bullshit and the middle man: humanism. Not so more an ideology as it is a state of mind, humanism value that which is most important to feminism and the Men’s Right Movement, equality, and more. It values reason, common sense, and agency of the individidual rather than agency of the collective. And for choosing to call myself a humanist instead of a feminist or an MRA, I’ve both been called a coward and, curiously, accused of not wanting true equality because I didn’t choose a “side.” I suppose they could be right, only that I didn’t want to choose a “side” to begin with as I believe we’re all, ultimately, fighting for the same cause. But I digress.

Anyway, that’s my reason for why I am not a feminist. (And MRA, and masculinist, and whatever else.)

Couldn’t agree more. When I define myself, I don’t say atheist, or feminist or humanist. Those are simply ideals and in essence hollow to describe you as a person. It’s that same othering that have prevented many atheists even in today’s USA from outing themselves as atheists, as it could for some reason have grievous consequences. Not so.

If we wish for the same thing, as you say, equal treatment for everyone under the law, what does it matter which -ism or -ist you prefer?

Meh. Since enforcement of patriarchal norms and propagation of damaging sexist bullshit is hardly confined to men–sometimes women are the most enthusiastic purveyors–I see no benefit to confining feminism to women.

I similarly don’t refer to myself as a feminist, for slightly tangential reasons.

In fact, my primary reason for not calling myself a feminist has nothing to do with my beliefs regarding social justice, but simply my beliefs regarding efficient labels and slipper inferential categories. I cannot, either off the top of my head or with some significant effort, think of a position (related to gender even tangentially) that has not been claimed at some point in history or recently, by at least some number of vocal people who called themselves feminists. And I genuinely mean /any/ position.

And as few people are willing to revoke others’ feminist cards, and none can do so effectively, any of these nigh infinite and often entirely contradictory positions must potentially be held by someone who calls themselves a feminist. In bayesian terms, knowing nothing but that a person calls themselves a feminist, your confidence in any of their other attributes is not going to be very high, and the list of potential attributes or positions of roughly similar likelyhood simply too long to be useful.

SO I figure I can stick with the longer but more explanative ‘generally in favor of more political, legal, economic-potential and social equality between people of all descriptions, with more freedom, peace, happiness, and fun for more people’

Feminism is and should be a movement of women, for women and led by women.

Then feminism is doomed to fail.

Consider the gendered wage gap. Much of that comes from societal attitudes that men are the workers, and women are the caregivers. Both genders contribute to that perception. Yet, while second-wave feminists did a great job of empowering women and convincing them that work was A-OK too, they did nothing to convince men they could be caregivers.

Net result: burnt out, overworked “supermoms,” which reinforced gender stereotypes by “breaking” them and allowing people to shake their heads over the wreckage.

Compare that with the Swedish model of ridiculous amounts of paternity leave. By including and focusing on men, they’ve managed to build a culture where people look at fathers funny if they don’t take a few months off. This has enabled more women to enter the workforce, raising their income and eroded the discrimination they face; at the same time, men have become more nurturing, caring fathers.

Because here’s the thing: every gender participates in perpetuating sexism and patriarchy, not just the men. Every gender pushes sexist stereotypes, and only by getting everyone to co-operate can we even have a hope of improving things. The feminist movement realized this thirty years ago, as a matter of fact; the rest of society has yet to catch up.

And with whom should we agree? Feminism is an impossibly diverse ideology, riven with internal argument and debate. To be a full participant in the movement, one needs to be able to take sides in those disputes. That puts a man in the impossible position of either telling half the feminists that you’re wrong and I know better, or else smiling and saying “well you both make very good points” like a liberal vicar trying to intervene in a pub fight.

Diversity does not equal divisiveness. Everysocialmovement contains large disagreements over what to do and how to do it. If anything, feminism is remarkably focused; the majority of self-identified feminists I’ve encountered have been third-wave sex-positive LGBTQ-friendly. The second-waves, sex-negatives and TERFs are the minority (though admittedly quite loud at times). I identify as male, and yet in the year or so I’ve been vocal about feminist issues, I can only think of one instance where I was dismissed because of my gender… and a feminist immediately jumped up to defend me.

What you are describing is nothing like the feminist movement I’ve encountered. It does fit the media’s misrepresentation of it to a T, however.

To take one example, there are many feminists who argue that there should be no prosecutions of women who make false allegations of rape.

If I’m forced to define my own politics, it would be in broad terms as a believer in social justice and human rights.

I match most definitions of “human” quite strongly, but I’m under no obligation to identify by that term. No matter what I call myself, however, it’s still accurate to call me “human.” In the same way, that one line qualifies you as a third-wave feminist. You may not accept the term, and I’m cool with calling you whatever you wish, but just because you don’t identify as a feminist doesn’t mean you are not one.

I support equal rights for women but i also believe that gender equality cuts both ways. And that men who face discrimination on account of being male have as much right to be taken seriously as women who face discrimination on account of their sex.

I’ve been accused online of being a misogynist for treating female posters the same way i treat male posters.Which makes me question what some women want when they say they want equality with men.For it seems to me that the equal but different argument often equates to women wanting the best of both worlds–which isn’t equality at all.

I’m involved in the campaign to get fathers equal custody rights of their children with mothers.Which seems to put me on a collision course with most of those who call themselves feminists. And that includes male feminists. But then i don’t see how any father could possibly call himself a feminist if he’s being prevented in playing a full and active part in the lives of his children.

I agree quite strongly with Ally’s post, and find nothing substantial to debate or even discuss.

I would also like to parrot Pitchy:

So, to rid myself of dogma and misunderstandings, I cut through the bullshit and the middle man: humanism. Not so more an ideology as it is a state of mind, humanism value that which is most important to feminism and the Men’s Right Movement, equality, and more.

Beginning some 35 or so years ago, I began to identify as a feminist ally. But, by the late 70s, with the advent of the extremist radical feminist groups, and the beginnings of gender feminism, it became plain that there were too many variations on a theme, some really grotesque, some really benign, and to identify with one made you enemies with the others, so, humanism.

All that being said though, I do tend to avoid actually labelling myself as anything — a humanist or otherwise, unless backed into a corner, or as an atheist either because religion just never has been of any kind of importance to me, so I just don’t think about it much.

That’s a bit like those Christians who believe you can’t have morality outside their particular religion. The fact is, there’s rather more to feminism than “social justice and human rights”. Feminism has its own ideas of social justice and human rights, which start from the idea that women are oppressed, and goes on to encompass doctrines like patriarchy, sexual objectification, rape culture, and privilege, as perceived by others as attaching to a group a person is perceived as belonging to, invalidating that person’s point of view. If I believe in social justice and human rights but think relations between the sexes are more complicated than unidirectional oppression of one sex, and reject feminist doctrines, then I can’t be a feminist, any more than I can be a Christian because I believe we should love one another but don’t think there’s any such thing as a god.

That’s a bit like those Christians who believe you can’t have morality outside their particular religion. The fact is, there’s rather more to feminism than “social justice and human rights”.

After becoming more vocal about feminism, I noticed an amusing pattern: people who have not studied feminism will lecture to you as if they were experts on the matter. I guess this is what physicists feel like.

Feminism has its own ideas of social justice and human rights, which start from the idea that women are oppressed,

Feminism is and should be a movement of women, for women and led by women. While any man can offer a voice of agreement, it is not for us to define the issues and prescribe the solutions.

So, as a man, you refrain from defining the issues and solutions, but you will define what you think should be the scope and limitations of feminism?

What about when women specifically ask men to join in? If we’re leaving the solutions to women, and women decide male participation is one solution (or at least the beggining of one), shouldn’t we participate?

What about male dominated spaces, such as the military or STEM research? Wouldn’t male feminist voices help in tackling bad stereotypes about women?

So, as a man, you refrain from defining the issues and solutions, but you will define what you think should be the scope and limitations of feminism?

OK, if you prefer:

Feminism, as I choose to understand it, is and should be a movement of women etc.

What about when women specifically ask men to join in? If we’re leaving the solutions to women, and women decide male participation is one solution (or at least the beggining of one), shouldn’t we participate

That’s entirely different. That’s people (who happen to be feminists) calling for male support in a specific campaign. I actively welcome that, and whenever I see such an invitation I’ll willingly consider it.

Perfect illustration of my point. Even though the opinion I’m expressing is “I offer no opinion on feminism” it is still unwelcome.

vs

Feminism, as I choose to understand it, is and should be a movement of women etc.

The latter looks an awful lot like an opinion. It’s also something of a misunderstanding. Feminism certainly focuses on women’s issues; it does not do so to either the exclusion of male participation or men’s issues.

That’s entirely different. That’s people (who happen to be feminists) calling for male support in a specific campaign. I actively welcome that, and whenever I see such an invitation I’ll willingly consider it.

That was a specific example. Skepchick is pretty consistent on wanting male paricipation across the board.

If you chose not to identify as feminist, that’s fine. All I’m saying this particular justification for doing so makes no sense.

John C. Welch

Yeah! No True Scotsman would say THAT.

There’s a difference between saying that no true scotsman likes sugar in their tea and pointing out that the scotsman in question was raised in England by his british aunt. No one is denying her feminism; her feminism is simply not representative to such a degree that she mostly stands alone.

hjhornbeck, thanks for agreeing with me that you need to believe in more than “social justice and human rights” to be a feminist. No thanks for the eye-rolling, appeals to authority, the obligatory Freethought-Blogs-Godwin (implied accusation of creationism).

The ideologies, practices, and perceptions inherent to gender feminism began in the late 70s, early 80s as an offshoot/joining of followers of radical/separatist feminism, who felt that that ideology was too radical and harsh, and other feminists who felt that general feminism was too easy going; too egalitarian. The fact that this was not labeled as such until much later is an irrelevancy.

Yeah, fair enough, I’ll grant you that. It is not even my place to state that feminism is primarily a movement by, for and about women.

it does not do so to either the exclusion of male participation or men’s issues.

it certainly can do. Many feminists assert that it does, except where male participation and men’s issues are a secondary consequence of a focus on women. There’s a cracking example here.

I’m not saying she’s right and the Skepchick community are wrong. I’m saying it’s not up to me to say who is right and who is wrong. If the Skepchicks or any other feminist wants me to sign a petition, go on a demo, write to a politician, boycott a company or whatever, then I’m happy to do so if I agree. But I’m not about to start telling them what issues they should be petitioning on, marching against or whatever else.

“Which makes me question what some women want when they say they want equality with men.”

It makes me question if they really know what equality would entail. I makes me think they think they know about men’s lives but really don’t. And when feminists complain for instance that it is unsafe for women to go out at night into absolutely any district they want and say that this is sexist, in other words that men are can go out and be safe, this just confirms my suspicion.

“I’m involved in the campaign to get fathers equal custody rights of their children with mothers.Which seems to put me on a collision course with most of those who call themselves feminists.”

I don’t follow. I didn’t say whose concern it OUGHT to be, I said that I see no benefit to telling men who would like to do feminism and call themselves feminists that they can’t, because it’s supposed to a woman thing. Ally doesn’t want to, which is fine. But I don’t agree that feminism is or should be confined to activism by women.

The ideologies, practices, and perceptions inherent to gender feminism

There is literally no such thing as gender feminism. It’s a made-up pejorative label, not a descriptive term. There are labels that exist to describe the branches of feminism that began in the 70s and 80s, some of them are contemporary and some were applied after the fact. “Gender feminism” isn’t one of those labels. It doesn’t actually mean anything, it just exists to contrast with the term “equity feminism,” and further the smear that feminism isn’t really about equality. I’ve met nobody who identifies as either a “gender feminist” or an “equity feminist”. I have, however, met many people who identify as third-wave feminists, womanists, trans feminists, and so on.

I am reading this link which you say is a cracking example of how male participation and men’s issues are a secondary consequence. A list of 15 things that men can do or not do to help women’s liberation is limiting men’s participation?

They are saying that men’s issues are secondary TO THEM, because they are focused on women’s liberation. And they mention men who claim to be oppressed by patriarchy but act as if it’s women oppressing them, and insinuate that this is bullshit. So yes on the issues, but not so much on the participation.

Curious: is this the sort of thing that counts as “silencing” in your book?

“Curious: is this the sort of thing that counts as “silencing” in your book?”

Well, maybe this bit is:
4. Before you consider talking about ‘patriarchy’, read a about it, or talk to your feminist (women) friends. Explain that you would like to know more. Listen and do not argue. There are plenty of books on the subject. I would recommend Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins, Kate Millett, bell hooks, Adrienne Rich. *Do not read feminist theory that has been written by men.*

But i agree with you about the rest.

It’s not really a live issue for me so maybe that’s why I am not really following this very well. I think women’s liberation is women’s business. No one can free you but yourself. If someone else does it for you, all you have is a new owner.

hjhornbeck, thanks for agreeing with me that you need to believe in more than “social justice and human rights” to be a feminist. No thanks for the eye-rolling, appeals to authority, the obligatory Freethought-Blogs-Godwin (implied accusation of creationism).

I suppose it’s fitting that someone who invents their own definition for “feminism” would argue against claims I never made and facts they invented. I never compared you to a creationist; I compared you to a physics crank.

Now would you like to read what I linked to, or will you continue to argue against phantoms?

I tend to focus on men’s and trans issues (especially trans women’s) because those are often forgotten ones, and I experienced a childhood being treated as male, and am trans (so I feel an expert, at least regarding myself).

I don’t think feminism or the MRM can do it, though the MRM is more open to questioning ideology that’s considered dogmatic by feminism, like patriarchy theory, or rape culture as affecting women more/specially. Just see Heather in Ask a Feminist on The Good Men Project to see why I don’t identify as feminist.

She says men can’t be oppressed on the gender axis as men, without class, race, orientation etc entering the picture. I disagree. No one will back down. It’s also the mainstream feminist position.

No, it’s called feminism because early feminists focused exclusively on women. By the time third-wave rolled around, and they realized things were too complex for such a limited focus, there was already a century of history behind the name. Since most of them primarily focused on women, the name still made some sense, though now it could also be applied to men focused on men’s issues.

4. Before you consider talking about ‘patriarchy’, read a about it, or talk to your feminist (women) friends. Explain that you would like to know more. Listen and do not argue. There are plenty of books on the subject. I would recommend Audre Lorde, Patricia Hill Collins, Kate Millett, bell hooks, Adrienne Rich.

Asking someone educate themselves is not silencing. Or do you think your mechanic is qualified to discuss quantum computing?

*Do not read feminist theory that has been written by men.*

…. I think they were using a heuristic to avoid MRA lies, but that is somewhat silencing. I’ll grant that one.

I think women’s liberation is women’s business.

So you don’t care if your sister, mother, or daughters are discriminated against? You may want to re-think that.

Do you prefer a cute slogan like “Equality for women only, by women and done by men (those in power)”?

Or maybe Patriarchy Hurts Men Too, What About The Menz, and “if we fix problems for women, men’s problem will magically fix themselves, because patriarchy will be smashed!”. What govermment do you think is supporting feminism? Oh yes, patriarchy (at least according to feminism’ definition).

Male feminists such as Julian Real and Hugo Schwyzer, know what it is to be a rich, white, straight, charming (ie never a problem dating) man with a certain standing and who got everything on a silver platter.

Uh, that’s not many, that’s one. The only people who seem to be pushing that line are MRAs and those opposed to feminism; actual feminists have a much more nuanced view.
So an article with one comment is just one feminist but an article with 9 comments is feminists?

Because even when Ally is saying that he offers no opinion and tries to explain that he doesn’t think his opinion is all that important feminist STILL take that as him trying to muscle in on their movement.

“So you don’t care if your sister, mother, or daughters are discriminated against? You may want to re-think that.”

hjhornbeck , if you think white knighting any woman is any kind of way to free her, you might want to rethink your definition of freedom.

I can care deeply about discrimination against my relatives without thinking that I need to stand over them and keep them weak and frail. In fact if I really care about empowering my daughter so she can defend herself, I teach her all the same things I would teach a son. see how that works?

“No, it’s called feminism because early feminists focused exclusively on women. By the time third-wave rolled around, and they realized things were too complex for such a limited focus, there was already a century of history behind the name. Since most of them primarily focused on women, the name still made some sense,”

Thank you for restating my point.

“though now it could also be applied to men focused on men’s issues.”

In excactly the same way as the MRM can be applied ot women’s issues. No, actually not in the same way, since the MRM attacks the foundations of the traditional gender binary, male hyperagency and female hypoagency. An example of attacking femlae hypoagency is arming and equipping women to defend and liberate themselves rather than having to rely on a man.

In response to my assertion that feminists believe woman are oppressed, you linked me to a book on feminist perspectives on masculinity on Google Books. All I can read is the blurb. What relevance does it have?

In response to my assertion that feminists believe in patriarchy, you linked me to an article on the Good Men Project in which a feminist justifies the term patriarchy. In response to my assertion that feminists believe in sexual objectification, you linked me to an article on a feminist blog that distinguished between sexual objectification and sexual empowerment. In response to my assertion that feminists believe in rape culture, you linked me to an article which asserts belief in rape culture. In response to my assertion that feminists use the concept of privilege to decide who does and who doesn’t have a valid point of view, you linked me to an article about a study into sexism in recruitment to scientific posts.

To sum up, I assert that feminists have beliefs other that go beyond “social justice and human rights” – something which you claimed was enough to make someone a feminist. Every one of the links you gave me, apart from the first one, which I couldn’t read, presumably because we live in different copyright jurisdictions, and the last one, which seems to have no relevance to what I said, confirmed that feminists do indeed hold beliefs beyond social justice and human rights.

I’m really not sure what point you’re making, unless it’s that you also hold those beliefs, and you think the links you provided me should convince me that they’re true. They don’t (and none of these beliefs are falsifiable, so they have no scientific value), but that’s beside the point. The point is, it’s possible to believe in social justice and human rights and not be a feminist.

May I add, it’s also possible to be a feminist and have beliefs incompatible with social justice and human rights – from Mary Daly’s aspiration to “decontaminate” the earth by reducing the population of males to 10%, to the recent government-recommended changes to how sexual assault and harassment accusations should be dealt with in American universities. So “feminism” is not by any means synonymous with “social justice and human rights”.

It was the list of what participation for men looks like that I was really talking about: do not talk about how patriarchy affects you except maybe once a year at a conference; if you want to help the movement do the childminding or the cooking; do not argue back to a woman, ever etc etc etc.

I said it was a cracking example of a feminist who really does not want men actively involved in feminism. And that’s fine. I broadly agree with her. The point is it is a long, long way removed from the Skepchicks approach.

Iceland? Sweden? You seem to be under the impression all social structures are governments.

Also, what does that have to do with gender feminism? Are you trying to change the subject from an argument you can’t answer, like you did last time we argued?

I’m talking about US and Canada.

Patriarchy is the government.
Patriarchy sets up and supports councils “on equality and women”.
Patriarchy gives funds to feminist works like DV shelters and lots of feminist stuff (organizations mostly).
Patriarchy funds, in its public universities, women’s studies programs.

Patriarchy is EXTREMELY invested in the idea of female-as-victim. And if feminism isn’t steering that way, it will find some extremist feminists who want that and make them figurehead so it does go that way.

hjhornbeck , if you think white knighting any woman is any kind of way to free her, you might want to rethink your definition of freedom.

Where did you get “white-knighting” from?

I can care deeply about discrimination against my relatives without thinking that I need to stand over them and keep them weak and frail.

[looks around, puzzled]

In fact if I really care about empowering my daughter so she can defend herself, I teach her all the same things I would teach a son. see how that works?

The problem is not what you teach her, but how the world treats her. All the education in the world will be worth nothing if she’s doomed to make 71 cents on the dollar for every dollar her brother makes.

Thank you for restating my point.

Noooo, you’re missing some critical details. You argued feminists were focused on women’s liberation. I stated that is one of many goals, albeit a primary one. See the difference?

In excactly the same way as the MRM can be applied ot women’s issues. No, actually not in the same way, since the MRM attacks the foundations of the traditional gender binary, male hyperagency and female hypoagency.

It was the list of what participation for men looks like that I was really talking about: do not talk about how patriarchy affects you except maybe once a year at a conference; if you want to help the movement do the childminding or the cooking; do not argue back to a woman, ever.

Whoa whoa, hold up. Are you implying women are always right about feminism or feminist issues? Schala has rattled off a few feminists that promote gender stereotypes by mistaking liberation for equality (and I added one myself). “Shut up and listen” is good advice, but what if you have listened? Are you obligated to be silent in perpetuity?

I’ll never experience sexism as personally as women do, nor will I get it right all the time, but that doesn’t mean I’m useless. My privilege can be levered to improve the lives of everyone, instead of just benefiting myself.

It is not even my place to state that feminism is primarily a movement by, for and about women.

Consistency is all I ask of you.

it certainly can do. Many feminists assert that it does, except where male participation and men’s issues are a secondary consequence of a focus on women.

I don’t mean that feminists never exclude men, only that the whole of feminism doesn’t.

I’m not saying she’s right and the Skepchick community are wrong. I’m saying it’s not up to me to say who is right and who is wrong. If the Skepchicks or any other feminist wants me to sign a petition, go on a demo, write to a politician, boycott a company or whatever, then I’m happy to do so if I agree. But I’m not about to start telling them what issues they should be petitioning on, marching against or whatever else.

See, this is where I disagree. If feminism is too tackle the issues facing women (which, by nearly everyone’s definition, it does), it needs (or could be greatly helped by) male voices and male perspectives. There are issues facing men that women don’t face (in general). Even if we restrict feminism to women’s issues (a pointless restriction, I think), we still need to dismantle our assumptions about men, since sexism against women and sexism against men go hand in hand. The idea that men are bad parents is reinforced by the idea that women are good parents; they reinforce each other since they create neat little roles for us all to play. So if a feminist is saying that men shouldn’t speak about men’s issues while feministing, I have no problem stating that xe is wrong.

I do, however, have a serious problem with men dropping into threads and discussions about women’s issues and whining about the lack of focus on men. Talking about men’s issues is fine; derailing discussions to do so is not. The fairly common derailing is, as far as I can tell, the primary motivation for feminist women saying men shouldn’t discuss men’s issues.

I said it was a cracking example of a feminist who really does not want men actively involved in feminism.

It’s an example of a feminist saying feminism shouldn’t focus on men’s issues, not that men shouldn’t participate.

Schala

You’ll be asked/told that every time you disagree. Because you couldn’t possibly come to another conclusion through a logical process, but only through ignorance.

Every example I’ve seen of feminists telling others to educate themselves have been aimed at people failing at logic to an extent that mere years ago I would have thought impossible.

Ginkgo

hjhornbeck , if you think white knighting any woman is any kind of way to free her, you might want to rethink your definition of freedom.

I can care deeply about discrimination against my relatives without thinking that I need to stand over them and keep them weak and frail. In fact if I really care about empowering my daughter so she can defend herself, I teach her all the same things I would teach a son. see how that works?

What a crock of shit. I don’t speak out against misogyny and sexism facing women because I think they’re too weak; I speak out because, whether women can deal with it themselves or not, they shouldn’t have to.

Second, how the fuck do we free anybody from stereotypes without dismantling the stereotypes? It doesn’t matter how much I empower my daughter, she’s still (in general) at a disadvantage to any man in a similar position because she has the extra load of misogynistic cultural assumptions. I’d like for her to be empowered without the added load so that she can reach her full potential rather than a reduced one.

No, actually not in the same way, since the MRM attacks the foundations of the traditional gender binary, male hyperagency and female hypoagency. An example of attacking femlae hypoagency is arming and equipping women to defend and liberate themselves rather than having to rely on a man.

The way you’re describing MRM tells me that, at best, it’s about 30 years behind feminism. Seriously, those myths were the focus of feminism for decades, and to an extent they still are.

Male feminists such as Julian Real and Hugo Schwyzer, know what it is to be a rich, white, straight, charming (ie never a problem dating) man with a certain standing and who got everything on a silver platter.

A, Hugo Schwyzer is not a nice person. B, feminists went through the same thing in the 70’s and 80’s. All the pioneering second-waves were rich, white, and straight, which did not sit well with a lot of women and led to the formation of third-wave.

Hugo Schwyzer was considered a good person, by feminist sites (Feministe, Jezebel, Feministing, Alas and more) until it came out that he almost killed one of his wives.

His self-flagellation and “maleness itself is bad” paradigm didn’t seem to bother them one bit. Michael Kimmel seems to also be in good standing as a male feminist.

If the point of view of male feminists accepted as feminists is the only point of view considered by feminism, it’s more than a little self-serving.

It’s like considering Catholic priests the only authority on abortion – consider no women can join, and their doctrine is very anti-abortion to start with.

Same deal with feminism. Only people who kowtow the line are allowed to remain identified by others as feminists (I would never qualify, because I disavow too many core tenets, although I’m for equality). So you only get one unified uncontested opinion from within, and the group thinks those outside are without merit.

As such you end up with men who want to apologize for having been born with a penis, for sins of their fathers and grandfathers as if they were their own, atone for mistakes not theirs, and generally unilaterally condemn masculinity as the culprit of everything bad in the culture, while elevating pedestalization (which is patriarchal) to new levels by considering women, by definition, can do no wrong, and men must change at all times.

The reality is that gender roles, prescriptive masculinity and prescriptive feminity, suck, badly, for everyone. Makes robot conformist who can’t think for themselves out of us. Easier to control too.

THAT’S better, that’s the reply I was hoping for! I think we’re talking on two different wavelengths, though. My links were not intended to argue feminists only believe in social justice and human rights; they were intended to deflate your assertion that all those things were “dogma;” I’m arguing they’re strong hypothesis with plenty of data to back them up. So it’s no wonder you think they

confirmed that feminists do indeed hold beliefs beyond social justice and human rights.

… because, yeah, that’s trivially true. Atheists also hold beliefs beyond “god probably doesn’t exist,” but atheism is defined by that assertion and that alone. What feminists believe, and what feminism is, are two separate issues.

Hopefully that cleared things up a bit.

it’s also possible to be a feminist and have beliefs incompatible with social justice and human rights – from Mary Daly’s aspiration to “decontaminate” the earth by reducing the population of males to 10%

And I would argue Mary Daly is being sexist, much in the same way Sommers is. Both may call themselves feminists, and lay-people who can’t tell empowerment from social change may believe them, but neither deserve to carry the label.

to the recent government-recommended changes to how sexual assault and harassment accusations should be dealt with in American universities.

Every example I’ve seen of feminists telling others to educate themselves have been aimed at people failing at logic to an extent that mere years ago I would have thought impossible.

I’ve been told, countless times, to go “educate myself” about feminism 101, radical feminism and other schools of thought, sometimes not even related to the subject at hand (but by authors my interlocutors liked).

I can’t disagree with patriarchy theory or ideology with logic, I must have arrived there through emotion, dogma or have been misled by someone else.

I can’t think rape culture intends to erase male rape even more so than it does female rape, because rape culture theory says it’s a patriarchal attitude of men to keep women in their place by keeping them in fear. I can’t think rape culture against women is strengthened by lots of campaigns promoting the idea that rapists go free anyways, not arrested, not convicted, not jailed. I can’t think rape culture against men is promoted by ignoring female on male rape, anomalizing, minimizing it and demonizing the average man as ‘a potential rapist’.

I can’t think female privilege exists, that it’s the mirror of male privilege, and that both require a certain adherence to gender roles to be gained, that their effects can’t be adequately measured (quality of life vs respect for your abilities – apples and bananas). If I think that I must have false consciousness, or simply be evil, or uneducated.

It is possible to arrive to other conclusions than feminist theory does, without necessarily being wrong. While being for equality.

The way you’re describing MRM tells me that, at best, it’s about 30 years behind feminism. Seriously, those myths were the focus of feminism for decades, and to an extent they still are.

Funny you should say that.

Feminism is using and abusing hypoagency to gain more sympathy for female victims, while ignoring the very possibility of female perpetrators of rape and DV (claims that it’s all in self-defense, that women wouldn’t do that to kids, let alone men – not just by conservatives, also by feminists).

VAWA is a gigantic show of hypoagency.

Child support laws are a gigantic show of hyperagency (as related to men) and has never been attacked by feminism. In fact NOW is against attacking it (thinks men obtaining custody more often could negatively impact women in terms of child support – seems like strong support for it).

I’m not for the eradication of child support itself. But it should be reformed. It should take into account current income (and be more easily modified than through lawyers). Not impute more capacity to work for men than women (and also, be fair about it). Not give custodial fathers amounts to pay (it does now, often). Not give parents who have 50% custody amounts to pay. Not give lesser amounts to pay (if any) to mothers who are the non-custodial parent.

The hyperagency is from this and also the fact that men have no choice, no option, besides abstinence and vasectomy, to remain childless. She bears the child, and he bears the cost, regardless of her decision. It should not be so. He should have to opt-in voluntarily, once he knows what the responsibility entails. Or refuse, pre-birth, and the mother would then have options to choose from in advance, knowingly. This way only people who want to parent become parents. There’ll be much less deadbeat dads if we stop stringing one-night stand guys along for child support payments based on a “you had sex, you pay for it”, a slogan that doesn’t work for women.

This was your original claim: “You’ll be asked/told that every time you disagree.”

If there’s one example of it not happening, you are wrong. I disagree with plenty of feminists (I did so just up the thread) and have not been told to go educate myself. This whole network is mostly made up of various feminists (men and women) who all have disagreed with each other. You are wrong

I can’t think female privilege exists, that it’s the mirror of male privilege…

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. The mirror of male privilege? Since when? Tell me then, where are all the female politicians, CEOs, bankers, scientists, etc? Why were women kept out of the arts for centuries? Why do nearly all the major religions treat women to be the property of men? Why do many, many people assume that a women claiming to be raped is lying? Why are assaulted women thought “deserve it” or to be “asking for it”?Why do women who disagree with the current paradigm get inundated with threats and harassment? Why the fuck does this shit exist, and why is the host company (facebook) refusing to do anything about it?

Being female has little privilege to it, and what privilege does come from it are based on very limiting assumptions. Hell, one of the only real “privileges” women supposedly have fuels the sexist assumption that women just want men for their money.

Child support laws are a gigantic show of hyperagency (as related to men) and has never been attacked by feminism.

Evidence please. Looking at Arizonas’s child support guidelines, it seems quite genderless to me. Most child support regulations are.

The hyperagency is from this and also the fact that men have no choice, no option, besides abstinence and vasectomy, to remain childless. She bears the child, and he bears the cost, regardless of her decision.

The hyperagency is from this and also the fact that men have no choice, no option, besides abstinence and vasectomy, to remain childless. She bears the child, and he bears the cost, regardless of her decision.

Do you seriously think that the cost is solely on the man’s shoulders, should the women recieve child support? Do you honestly think that a few hundred a month is enough to raise a happy, healthy child?

Can you find anywhere I’ve used the word “dogma”? I used “doctrine”, which means simply “what is taught”.

But scientifically, no, they are not “strong hypothesis with plenty of data to back them up”. As I said, they are not falsifable, therefore they do not conform to the scientific method, therefore are not hypotheses. Is there any hypothetical observation that would show that a society was not a patriarchy, or that a culture was not a rape culture? They’re campaigning slogans, no more.

And time and again the data used to support feminist beliefs is found to be rigged. For example, The WEF Global Gender Gap report 2012 guarantees it will find only inequality against women by “truncat[ing] data at the equality benchmark”, i.e. counting as equal situations where inequality favours women. Even in a hypothetical society where women were better off on the vast majority of measures and worse off on one, the WEF would find women were worse off overall.

—-Feminism is using and abusing hypoagency to gain more sympathy for female victims, while ignoring the very possibility of female perpetrators of rape and DV (claims that it’s all in self-defense, that women wouldn’t do that to kids, let alone men – not just by conservatives, also by feminists).—-

Funny, I’m a feminist, and I can’t recall doing any such thing. In fact, I distinctly recall standing by a male friend’s side, testifying on his behalf, and letting him crash on my couch after he was physically abused by his female spouse in what was most assuredly NOT self-defense.

One bullshit claim down, moving on –

—VAWA is a gigantic show of hypoagency.—

No explanation or evidence provided to support this claim.

Two bullshit claims down, moving on –

—Child support laws are a gigantic show of hyperagency (as related to men) and has never been attacked by feminism. —

I’m a feminist, and I have often attacked how child support laws are currently set up. I’ve attacked the issue from multiple directions such as how easy it is for men to get out of paying child support and how it is set up to disproportionately damage the men who actually want to be good fathers and caretakers for their children. I’ve also been prone to point out the many cases in which women are paying child support because the man is the primary caretaker and that by furthering the cause of feminism, we could increase the amount of involvement men have in their children’s lives because caretaking would no longer default to the women.

Three bullshit claims down, moving on –

—-The hyperagency is from this and also the fact that men have no choice, no option, besides abstinence and vasectomy, to remain childless.—

And the sheer number of feminists who have posted rants about how much it sucks that birth control tends to be the sole responsibility of the woman and how much they wish there were good options for men – were those missed by you, or are you ignoring them in your hyperbole?

Four bullshit claims down, moving on –

—There’ll be much less deadbeat dads if we stop stringing one-night stand guys along for child support payments based on a “you had sex, you pay for it”, a slogan that doesn’t work for women.—

The deadbeat dad phenomenon has far more to do with society actively discouraging men from being the caretakers of their children. Dad gets to teach the kids to play a sport and have a few fun activities, mom does the cooking, cleaning, nursing, discipline, etc… This is something else feminism is fighting against. Feminism believes that caretaking should either be a 50/50 thing from both parents, or that the parent that is best suited to the task (whether it be mother or father) does the task.

Well, that about addresses all your bullshit. Perhaps now that the straw has been scattered, we can actually address the real issues?

Ally and his ilk don’t want to ‘call themselves feminists’ because feminists take a lot of shit and they can’t be all ‘bros’ if they are also feminists, amirite?

No worries guys, Feminism is awesome because we have WithinThisMind fighting our corner! It doesn’t matter that very influential Feminist organisations such as the Fawcett Society constantly fight any attempts for more equitable parental leave because a random, anonymous feminist has “posted rants” on the internet for us!

/sarcasm

You know, I find it hard to care about the intricacies of your personal views because I judge movements and groups by their most influential members, not the insignificant ones. All you’ll ever really achieve as a feminist is to provide cover for the powerful members of your group while they screw people over.

Funny, I’m a feminist, and I can’t recall doing any such thing. In fact, I distinctly recall standing by a male friend’s side, testifying on his behalf, and letting him crash on my couch after he was physically abused by his female spouse in what was most assuredly NOT self-defense.

Did I talk about you personally? I talked about feminism as a movement. The one that actually does stuff in the world like start/build/staff shelters, which are for women only. The ones that fight men’s shelters so they get no grant funding (because it would take from women who need it, who don’t have enough as is). The ones that promote VRR-like belief (including Sheila Jeffreys, often cited on their site) that maleness itself is at fault in rape, that counselors who have ever had a penis can’t understand what it is to be raped, that trans women are not women, that men are essentially incompetent and/or evil, also that being an airline pilot disqualifies you from being known as female, because few women do this. The ones that start a women’s pharmacy with the full intention of not serving trans women. The ones that push for “women only” to mean “cis women only” by default (both conservative and TERF efforts, very public ones too).

—VAWA is a gigantic show of hypoagency.—

No explanation or evidence provided to support this claim.

It presumes that women, and only women, are uniquely in danger of violence, so fragile (unlike those big strong men who can take a beating, presumably) and in need of protection. If it protected *everyone* maybe it wouldn’t be hypoagentic, since you need to be hypoagentic compared to someone.

A VAWA that goes against hypoagency would be a gender neutral name about domestic violence. Maybe The Family Violence Act, or something. It would fund shelters for men victims as well. It would recognize that women can seek power and control, and that helplessness and a desire to retrieve control is not gendered. It would find that the Duluth Model’s binary male-bad female-good model is flawed to the core, and find one more in touch with reality. It would reduce the amount of victims immensely, and actually advance the cause to eliminate all violence. It would show actual empathy for the suffering of men (which few ever do, at a systemic level).

I’m a feminist, and I have often attacked how child support laws are currently set up.

Then go lead NOW. Because if you’re at the personal level, you won’t achieve political change at all. If you leave the other ones who are against joint custody lead the legal fray, your grassroots efforts will only lead (some) people to rail against NOW, since it’s misguided. Then they’ll be called either misogynists or false-consciousness, because NOW is only for the rights of women to be human, right?

If YOU do something, but your (voluntarily joined) group does the complete opposite, and that group has more power, influence and political clout…your efforts are nothing. This is why I disavow both feminism and the MRM – I think both movements have nice aims at the base, but went so far astray that they’re no longer salvageable. A movement for equality should have no dogma. It should look at facts, not make up theories then fit the facts around it (this is how the Duluth Model looks).

I’m an egalitarian, no official label, I have no one I’m unofficially supporting by taking any label, the way I would support Janice Raymond by taking the feminist label. I’m a “curse on both your houses” kind of girl. Independent, critical thinking, skeptic. Don’t need dogma, I can think.

And the sheer number of feminists who have posted rants about how much it sucks that birth control tends to be the sole responsibility of the woman and how much they wish there were good options for men – were those missed by you, or are you ignoring them in your hyperbole?

Most feminists tend to be vehemently against paper abortions, claiming that, until such a time that men can bear children en masse, or that men have a pill for contraception; her body, her choice, his responsibility, and if he didn’t want a kid, he should have been abstinent.

The deadbeat dad phenomenon has far more to do with society actively discouraging men from being the caretakers of their children.

I think it has more to do with visiting times being abyssal. Two days every two weeks, is abyssal. Tender Years Doctrine, and “like before the divorce” are standards that do not come from conservatism. Conservatism gave men full unquestioned custody, because they provided the money, until 100 years ago. This whole “women are better parents” didn’t matter until then, it’s not a millenia-old standard.

If visitation rights are not enforced properly (no mechanism for redress in case of fault), while he’s considered a walking wallet, maybe child support itself is contributing. Also, sometimes you lose your job. Most defaulting on child support payments is due to not being ABLE to pay. As in, got no money. I’m sure some people game the system, get an undeclared job while on welfare and have offshore accounts in tax-free places, but those are exceptions.

This is something else feminism is fighting against. Feminism believes that caretaking should either be a 50/50 thing from both parents, or that the parent that is best suited to the task (whether it be mother or father) does the task.

Too bad NOW doesn’t. It’s a feminist organization last I heard. It campaigns against presumed joint custody following a divorce, claiming that most fathers contesting custody are abusers, so they better not have custody anyways. Tender Years Doctrine (kid should be with mother in young age) was also introduced by feminism.

Well, that about addresses all your bullshit. Perhaps now that the straw has been scattered, we can actually address the real issues?

I addressed your bullshit about my arguments.

Ally and his ilk don’t want to ‘call themselves feminists’ because feminists take a lot of shit and they can’t be all ‘bros’ if they are also feminists, amirite?

Mainly because he’s treated like an uninvited and unwanted guest. Only wanted in as much as he’s a yes man. But he can’t take leadership, do important stuff, or even raise points, or he’s showing male privilege, taking space, and silencing women. Better abstain no?

You’ve got to be fucking kidding me. The mirror of male privilege? Since when?

It’s a different kind of privilege.

As a woman, I have the privilege of being able to express myself normally (screaming at people is not normal, it’s childish) without being shamed for it.

As a woman, I have the privilege of being generally protected from violence. If I have male relatives, they will tend to feel a need, wand and duty to protect me from any harm that may befall me.

As a woman, I have the privilege of not being assumed to be a predator for breathing, neither physical nor sexual predator until proven otherwise.

As a woman, I have the privilege of having services especially tailored for me in many places, public and private, that don’t involve female genital or internal organs.

As a woman, I have the privilege of having a degree of expression regarding hairstyles that is unparallelled. I can have pretty short hair, mid-length hair, long hair, very long hair, in an incredible variety of styles. I can also color my hair for any reason (grey hair, halloween, like a different color, impulse) without anyone thinking less of me.

As a woman, I have the privilege of having an extremely vast array of clothing I can wear for every possible occasion. In all the colors that exist, in an incredible variety of fabric, lengths, cuts, shapes, decorations. I can wear most of those without ever being shamed. I can express my emotions and personal artistic sense, as well as uniqueness in how I dress myself, and vary this constantly as I want. I can maintain such a wardrobe for very cheap, provided I know where to look and accept second-hand clothing. I can maintain such a wardrobe for not-pricy-at-all (working class can afford easy) if I buy not-brand-name stuff, also, even without any second-hand clothing.

As a woman, I have the privilege of knowing that, would I be the victim of domestic violence, I could do something about it, get my abuser arrested, get a restriction order placed on him (yeah, it doesn’t work that good in female-female cases) and get services in a shelter, possibly pro-bono lawyers to prosecute my case for free, and relocate me into cheap housing.

As a woman, I have the privilege to not be considered always able and willing to use and receive violence to prove membership to my sex. I can refuse to inflict violence on someone, and refuse to be beaten, even playfully, without someone calling my sex into question.

As a woman, I have the privilege to not be required to do military service in most countries in the world, and in the US, not register for SSS, which is required to receive financial aid for men.

As a woman, I have the privilege of being presumed righteous whenever violence is inflicted or claimed to have been inflicted on someone else (male) by me. The “he had it coming/deserved it” defense, from other people, showing sympathy towards me.

As a woman, I have the privilege of being presumed competent as a parent, of not being presumed a pedophile (yes it’s that bad for men), and of being considered a moral good without actually having done anything to prove it (it’s the default state). Ask TV Trope about this one: It takes more for a female character to “cross the event horizon” where she becomes evil to the audience, because she starts in the “good” zone (men start in the “neutral” zone).

I also have the privilege of not having to care about being a CEO, in congress or whatever. Marketers and politicians already cater to me as a demographic all the damn time. Because it gets them sympathy votes, even from men. Marketers think I’m 80% of their consumers for everything except beer, strong alcohol and pick-up trucks/muscle cars. Marketers think I’m 40-50% of their videogame consumers.

I can also marry into wealth much easier than a similarly situated man could, if only because it’s more socially accepted for women to depend on an income not their own (thus I don’t consider this a problem, it’s a bonus).

Note that male privileges are similarly situated to female privileges: They depend on a certain normative gendered stance. Feminine women get the most, masculine men get the most.

Daran once illustrated that privilege would be:

men at the bottom (poor, ugly, destitute, disabled, etc)
women at the bottom
women at the top
men at the top

from least to most privileged

There’s much fewer people at the top. Also, why women at the bottom are slightly above men at the bottom, is because most female privileges are about having safety nets from falling through the floor (becoming homeless, suiciding, being helpless in front of being abused), while male privileges are about having a slight boost through the ceiling.

It’s evident that I’d prefer female privileges if I didn’t aim to be the next Bill Gates. I prefer people sympathizing with me, offering me help when I’m in the shits, than having more respect when I’m the next billionaire.

Mainly because he’s treated like an uninvited and unwanted guest. Only wanted in as much as he’s a yes man. But he can’t take leadership, do important stuff, or even raise points, or he’s showing male privilege, taking space, and silencing women. Better abstain no?

hjhornbeck,
“What a crock of shit. I don’t speak out against misogyny and sexism facing women because I think they’re too weak; I speak out because, whether women can deal with it themselves or not, they shouldn’t have to.
Second, how the fuck do we free anybody from stereotypes without dismantling the stereotypes?”

What a crock of shit. How the fuck do you free someone from stereotypes by reinforcing them? “They shouldn’t have too”? Please. Of course not, after all, they “have people for that”, right? If they shouldn’t have to deal wiht this for them selves, why on earth should anyone else?

What next – spreading your jacket over a puddle? And you wonder where the reference to “white knighting” came from.

Does any of that really come close to having personal and economic agency?

I also have the privilege of not having to care about being a CEO, in congress or whatever. Marketers and politicians already cater to me as a demographic all the damn time.

Your clueless. I think you live under a rock. Politicians cater to women? You mean the constant attacks on planned parenthood? What about many countries around the world banning abortions altogther, even in cases where the mother and child are doomed to die? Or the demonization of birth control, with politicians and pundits calling women who use it “sluts”? What about the simple fact that women had to fight to even matter in politics?

The only “catering” politicians do are in the form of bills that emphasize the prosecution of things that are already illegal, to combat the historic violence and discrimination against women. Even that is oppose by many politicians, and what does pass isn’t reliably enforced. You’re full of shit.

And no, not being a CEO isn’t a privilege. If that’s how you prefer it, awesome for you. But women are being kept from being CEOs, they’re aren’t being privileged to chose to not do so.

I can also marry into wealth much easier than a similarly situated man could, if only because it’s more socially accepted for women to depend on an income not their own (thus I don’t consider this a problem, it’s a bonus).

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that this “privilege” is in any way prevelant in any other way then referencing the “gold digger” stereotype. Also, economic dependancy on ones spouse is a major factor in DV and spousal rape; considering the prevalence of both, the economic independance is a privilege for men.

As a woman, I have the privilege of knowing that, would I be the victim of domestic violence, I could do something about it, get my abuser arrested, get a restriction order placed on him (yeah, it doesn’t work that good in female-female cases) and get services in a shelter, possibly pro-bono lawyers to prosecute my case for free, and relocate me into cheap housing.

Yes, monetary aid exists for women leaving their abusive spouse. This isn’t a privilege; it’s a correction to counteract the fact that many women are economically dependant one their husband. The fact that women are more likely to need the aid in the first place is the problem at hand.

“Approximately 60% of family violence victimizations were reported to police between 1998 and 2002. The reporting rate among female victims was not significantly greater than the reporting rate among male victims.”

“About 49% of family violence crimes recorded by police resulted in an arrest. Males comprised 77% of suspected family violence offenders arrested in 2000.”

“Nearly half of felony assault defendants charged with family violence were released pending case disposition.

Among the 1,500 felony assault cases, the probability of the case leading to conviction (felony or misdemeanor) was greater for family assault defendants (71%) than nonfamily assault defendants (61%).”

So there seems to be some bias against men in DV cases. But even so, there is not great guarente that the man will be arrested and charged. You’re overstating your case.

As a woman, I have the privilege of being presumed righteous whenever violence is inflicted or claimed to have been inflicted on someone else (male) by me.

You also have the privilege of people assuming you deserve it when you’re assaulted. This is a two way street.

Also, I see far more people complaining about this double standard that I see enforcing the standard. I’m not convinced that this is nearly as great a problem that people claim.

As a woman, I have the privilege of being presumed competent as a parent, of not being presumed a pedophile (yes it’s that bad for men), and of being considered a moral good without actually having done anything to prove it (it’s the default state).

Then why does the “women are all bitchs” stereotype exist, if women are assumed to be moral? The women displayed on TV as moral are displayed as a prescriptive ideal; it shows what our culture thinks women should be, not what they are.

Confusion prescription and description is probably the most common thing I see among anti-feminists (MRA or otherwise).

men at the bottom (poor, ugly, destitute, disabled, etc)
women at the bottom
women at the top
men at the top

I find assertions without evidence very easy to dismiss.

There’s much fewer people at the top. Also, why women at the bottom are slightly above men at the bottom, is because most female privileges are about having safety nets from falling through the floor (becoming homeless, suiciding, being helpless in front of being abused),

Safety nets that only began to exist within the past century. Saftey nets that are often opposed by the current culture. Even with the saftery nets, women comprise of a greater percentage of the poor. The only impoverished group where men make up the majority is the homeless, and, in Canada at least, that trend has been changing, with women making up 40% in recent years.

No, you have failed to demonstrate that female privilege in any way matches male privilege.

Did I talk about you personally? I talked about feminism as a movement. The one that actually does stuff in the world like start/build/staff shelters, which are for women only. The ones that fight men’s shelters so they get no grant funding (because it would take from women who need it, who don’t have enough as is).

For fucks sakes, we’ve been over this a dozen times. You don’t get to object to specific groups of feminists and then pretend that they represent the movement as a whole.

Your clueless. I think you live under a rock. Politicians cater to women? You mean the constant attacks on planned parenthood? What about many countries around the world banning abortions altogther, even in cases where the mother and child are doomed to die? Or the demonization of birth control, with politicians and pundits calling women who use it “sluts”? What about the simple fact that women had to fight to even matter in politics?

Planned parenthood is something men don’t have. So it’s not “an attack on women”, it’s an attack on “biological processes of making a child”. And based on conservative views, shared in few countries that want to call themselves enlightened. Even right-wing Stephen Harper would not dare open the debate on abortion here in Canada. And it’s not illegal in the US, and going in the right direction.

What about many countries around the world banning abortions altogther, even in cases where the mother and child are doomed to die?

What about this strawman about men dying in 1939-1945 conscription and everyone being for it including in first world countries like the US, Canada and UK. I can play this too.

Or the demonization of birth control, with politicians and pundits calling women who use it “sluts”? What about the simple fact that women had to fight to even matter in politics?

They’re also against condoms, and would be against male contraception too, if it even existed. They’re not attacking women. They’re misanthropists who are stupid, and going extinct. They don’t represent a majority opinion, and don’t claim to even pander to women, ever. The left does, and the left is not anti-abortion or anti-contraception.

What about the simple fact that women had to fight to even matter in politics?

Matter in what way? Do you see men mattering in politics? Male issues being discussed in congress? Didn’t think so. It’s either all-humans, or women-only, men-only issues are always ignored, even by male politicians.

The only “catering” politicians do are in the form of bills that emphasize the prosecution of things that are already illegal, to combat the historic violence and discrimination against women. Even that is oppose by many politicians, and what does pass isn’t reliably enforced. You’re full of shit.

VAWA, neither gender neutral in name or in effect. Enough said. It passed, you know. Historic violence against men we call humor.

And no, not being a CEO isn’t a privilege. If that’s how you prefer it, awesome for you. But women are being kept from being CEOs, they’re aren’t being privileged to chose to not do so.

To be a CEO or member of congress you need to be exceptional. You’re either rich to start with, or have an incredible idea PLUS the way to make it fructify (ie Microsoft/Google/Facebook). Most people aren’t CEOs (way less than 1%), most people can’t becomes CEOs (don’t have the skill), and most people DON’T WANT to become CEOs, because of the huge amount of work and sacrifice and responsibility it entails.

Male privilege doesn’t make you a CEO, it gives you a TINY better shot at becoming one, because if you survived male childhood, you can survive a jungle where everyone shits on each other for power grabs while nobody cares about your wellbeing. If you can be the best at shitting on others, you stand a better chance at being CEO. It’s not required, being an asshole just helps.

So, in short, we train men at being better assholes by withholding empathy towards their suffering while throwing them in a lion’s pit. And then you claim it’s a privilege because people who survive the lion’s pit and actually want to have a top position are better psychologically prepared to shit on other people?

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that this “privilege” is in any way prevelant in any other way then referencing the “gold digger” stereotype. Also, economic dependancy on ones spouse is a major factor in DV and spousal rape; considering the prevalence of both, the economic independance is a privilege for men.

You don’t need to date Hugh Hefner, you can make 30k a year and date/marry someone who makes 50-100k a year, and he won’t think twice. Your inferior income is of no concern to him, he doesn’t love you for money, and you won’t be accused of loving him for money at this level either (millionaire yes).

You also don’t need to depend on the spouse for liveable income. You can make enough to clothe and feed yourself, living with him just brings you to Las Vegas levels of lifestyle.

Also spousal rape and DV has not been studied in the case of male victims who are economically dependent. Radical feminist 1970s 2nd wave theory of Men Are Wife-Batterers assume that “Men Is Richer, Thus They Oppress”. Yet women control over 70% of all spendings, while making less than 45% of income. This includes luxury goods, not just Kraft Dinner. 2nd wave also didn’t think men could be victims, because patriarchy told them it was so, and they listened, and attacked anyone claiming otherwise.

Yes, monetary aid exists for women leaving their abusive spouse. This isn’t a privilege; it’s a correction to counteract the fact that many women are economically dependant one their husband. The fact that women are more likely to need the aid in the first place is the problem at hand.

So you think men don’t need DV shelters, help prosecuting their abusing girlfriend or spouse, help getting the children out of there, help getting a restriction order, help finding new cheap housing? Men are all rich and strong (thus never victims) and don’t care about kids?

So there seems to be some bias against men in DV cases. But even so, there is not great guarente that the man will be arrested and charged. You’re overstating your case.

Great strawman. I never said guarantee to have him arrested. She’s more likely to have him arrested than he his to have her arrested. He’s less likely to be helped in any way whatsoever too. At best, he gets told she needs therapy (a similar case where the male is the abuser would have him arrested on the spot, not her being told he needs therapy).

You also have the privilege of people assuming you deserve it when you’re assaulted. This is a two way street.

People are more likely to take my side than his side, unless they’re his personal buddies or family. I can have perfect strangers on my side, on my say-so, or even just being watched (don’t even have to call for help).
People from Texas who scream Yahoo! might think she deserved it, but they’re a minority.

Also, I see far more people complaining about this double standard that I see enforcing the standard. I’m not convinced that this is nearly as great a problem that people claim.

Then see the video on ABC 20/20 where they present scenarios of public beatings men vs women. The reaction when a man is beaten vs a woman is beaten. Even a off-duty cop was on the woman’s side. And he was obviously cowering under her hits, not hitting back. A woman made a “you go girl” punching motion.

Then why does the “women are all bitchs” stereotype exist, if women are assumed to be moral? The women displayed on TV as moral are displayed as a prescriptive ideal; it shows what our culture thinks women should be, not what they are.

It presents what they are presumed to are unless they show otherwise. She’s assumed to be a moral upstanding citizen (more than just some random guy), because breasts. Until she commits a felony in front of him. Your argument is strawman. Being a bitch is not immoral. Immorality relates to crimes and obvious wrongdoings. He’s assumed to be weird because he’s in a daycare, maybe a pedophile! She’s assumed to be there because she cares, no sexual feelings assumed towards children. Thus she’s assumed moral, he’s not.

Even with the saftery nets, women comprise of a greater percentage of the poor.

Yet a much smaller % of the homeless.

For fucks sakes, we’ve been over this a dozen times. You don’t get to object to specific groups of feminists and then pretend that they represent the movement as a whole.

I only object to the feminists WHO ACTUALLY DO STUFF. Here my voice is not changing stuff, yours either. You might be The Most Egalitarian on Earth. See how NOW cares. They won’t change because of you, unless you do something about them. They’ll dismiss me as a non-feminist, maybe anti-feminist. But they get other feminists who don’t denounce them’s tacit silent approval, by sharing the feminist title. Feminism is a voluntary membership group.

Men explicitely have access to planned parenthood, with specific services just for them. It’s a family planning organization; it has never been for women only.

And yet, only their services for women are ever attacked politically.

What about this strawman about men dying in 1939-1945 conscription and everyone being for it including in first world countries like the US, Canada and UK.

I was responding to your assertion that politicians as a group cater to women. Male conscription, though unjust, has nothing to do with this.

They’re also against condoms, and would be against male contraception too, if it even existed.

Except there’s been very little said about family planning organizations or universities giving out free condoms (with the exception of religious universities; they’ve been reprehensibly consistent). But free women’s birth control? The conservatives lost their shit, with liberals being mealy mouthed about it.

Do you see men mattering in politics? Male issues being discussed in congress?

I see more male politicians active this year than female politicians in the past century. Yes, I see men mattering in politics, unless you want to conclude that nearly every single minister, prime minister and president didn’t matter.

I’ve seen more than one all male panel address women’s issues while being very dismissive, despite a great many women explicitely wanting female politicians on these panels.

No; women are often dismissed in politics unless it feeds into some already existing normative stereotype (which, again, are very narrow).

Male privilege doesn’t make you a CEO, it gives you a TINY better shot at becoming one, because if you survived male childhood, you can survive a jungle where everyone shits on each other for power grabs while nobody cares about your wellbeing.

Women represent about 4.25% of the top 1000 companies; that’s a pretty massive difference for such a tiny advantage.

Also spousal rape and DV has not been studied in the case of male victims who are economically dependent.

Not relevant; even assuming that DV occurs symmetricaly, men still have a better chance at being financially independent. This is an advantage for men.

So you think men don’t need DV shelters, help prosecuting their abusing girlfriend or spouse, help getting the children out of there, help getting a restriction order, help finding new cheap housing? Men are all rich and strong (thus never victims) and don’t care about kids?

Reading comprehension; you has non (which is funny since you repeatedly accuse me of strawmanning). I said they need it less, primarily because of financial independence.

I never said guarantee to have him arrested.

No, you said you could do something about it. Even with the bias against men, that is not necessarily the case. There is a significant chance that he will not be arrested or charged.

People are more likely to take my side than his side, unless they’re his personal buddies or family.

So, in abstract, women are more moral and virtuous. In practice, they’re bitches who had it coming.

It presents what they are presumed to are unless they show otherwise.

“Otherwise” being a strict and narrow set of looks and behaviour.

Yet a much smaller % of the homeless.

You realize I already said that, right?

I only object to the feminists WHO ACTUALLY DO STUFF.

I linked you to paper’s written by feminist lawyers advocating for changes in the current laws to be more egalitarian and to get rid of the implied victomhood of women. Feminists are doing stuff to combat the status quo; that you refuse to recognize them is irrelevant.

Got it the other way around, Schala, in your haste to put up the strawmen.

Ally won’t call himself a feminist not because of the feminists, but because of the folks like you who build up the strawmen and will call him a ‘white knight’ and ‘mangina’ and all the other lovely hateful terms spewed at the men who actually believe in equality and treating women like people.

—You know, I find it hard to care about the intricacies of your personal views because I judge movements and groups by their most influential members, not the insignificant ones.—

And funnily enough, the ‘most influential’ members are the ones who agree with me. But instead, you’ll go to the loonie ‘rad-fems’ and pretend they are the voice of feminism. Or you’ll just build up strawpeople and pretend those are the voices. Either way, it just proves that you know you’ve got nothing, or you wouldn’t have to lie.

In which the vast majority are pointing out that patriarchy hurts men too, by making it harder for men to seek help.

—The ones that fight men’s shelters so they get no grant funding—

Citation needed

—The ones that promote VRR-like belief (including Sheila Jeffreys, often cited on their site) that maleness itself is at fault in rape, that counselors who have ever had a penis can’t understand what it is to be raped—

Ah, so, like Adiabat, you are choosing to pretend a few fringe elements are the ‘voice of feminism’, in spite of how many feminists are also calling bullshit on that…

—that trans women are not women—

and on that…

—-that men are essentially incompetent and/or evil—

and on that…

—- also that being an airline pilot disqualifies you from being known as female, because few women do this—

and on that…

—The ones that start a women’s pharmacy with the full intention of not serving trans women. —

and on that…

—The ones that push for “women only” to mean “cis women only” by default (both conservative and TERF efforts, very public ones too).—

and on that…

Who, exactly, are these ‘feminists’ you are citing? Sara Fucking Palin?

Because as near as I can tell, everything you are blaming ‘feminists’ for are things that feminists, including ones on this very blog, are fighting very hard against.

Try for a little intellectual honesty, or at least pretend you are arguing in good faith.

—Too bad NOW doesn’t. It’s a feminist organization last I heard. It campaigns against presumed joint custody following a divorce, claiming that most fathers contesting custody are abusers, so they better not have custody anyways. Tender Years Doctrine (kid should be with mother in young age) was also introduced by feminism.—

Clearly, Schala, you aren’t a woman, or you’d know how much those ‘privileges’ you listed are complete bullshit.

Let’s address one, shall we?

—-As a woman, I have the privilege of knowing that, would I be the victim of domestic violence, I could do something about it, get my abuser arrested, get a restriction order placed on him (yeah, it doesn’t work that good in female-female cases) and get services in a shelter, possibly pro-bono lawyers to prosecute my case for free, and relocate me into cheap housing.—

My sister, a woman, was the victim of domestic violence. She attempted to do something about that. It took three incidents for the cops to even show up, and they refused to even take a report, let alone arrest her abuser. They told her she needed to ‘work it out’. She was unable to get anything resembling a restraining order. She was unable to even get the police to stay so she could gather her belongings. She attempted to get them to take her to a shelter and after several minutes finally convinced them to take her to the police station so she could call from relative safety, they refused to let her take her children, including an infant that was still being breastfeed, with her. There were no ‘pro-bono’ lawyers, let alone any real option to prosecute. No ‘cheap housing’ was made available, meaning she had no place to go other than the streets which would have resulted in her losing her kids. Her ‘friends’ essentially told her to stop being such a bitch and that if she knew her place he wouldn’t hit her.

You’ve got your fantasy of female ‘privilege’, hand-crafted out of straw for you by various MRA types. Unfortunately, many of us women and some men have to live the reality.

Men explicitely have access to planned parenthood, with specific services just for them. It’s a family planning organization; it has never been for women only.

You mean men can renounce to children their sex partner decided to keep so that they have no rights as parents, nor responsibilities as walking wallets towards the future child?

If not, then it’s not the services for men that matter.

I was responding to your assertion that politicians as a group cater to women. Male conscription, though unjust, has nothing to do with this.

Most politicians cater to women. No politician ever caters to men qua men (men as humans, but never men as men). Obama’s plan to help jobs was originally planned to help mainly construction jobs, which happen to be mostly-male, because they were the worst hit. Feminists contested it until the help to men got reduced. Obama agreed.

Except there’s been very little said about family planning organizations or universities giving out free condoms (with the exception of religious universities; they’ve been reprehensibly consistent). But free women’s birth control? The conservatives lost their shit, with liberals being mealy mouthed about it.

I agree, if you don’t pay for condoms and vasectomies with your insurance, it should also not finance other contraception. Or it should finance it all. No selective stuff there.

Conservatives advocate against ALL manners of birth control in other countries, why not the US? They’re also again in vitro stuff, probably because lesbians can do it.

I see more male politicians active this year than female politicians in the past century. Yes, I see men mattering in politics, unless you want to conclude that nearly every single minister, prime minister and president didn’t matter.

I’ve seen more than one all male panel address women’s issues while being very dismissive, despite a great many women explicitely wanting female politicians on these panels.

No; women are often dismissed in politics unless it feeds into some already existing normative stereotype (which, again, are very narrow).

You’ve seen panels on men’s issues? Ever? Enough said.

Women represent about 4.25% of the top 1000 companies; that’s a pretty massive difference for such a tiny advantage.

What can I say, the combined factors of current CEOs being 60-80+ years old (from 1930, not 1980), breadwinning being considered a masculine pursuit (ie women don’t gain attraction status from it), and women prioritizing quality of life (just ask who would rather work less or not at all, if they could financially). Those who want to become CEO can do it. It’s just so so so few of us. Go ask the Country Club if they have a candidate, that’s a rich human’s problem. Most people don’t want nor care to become CEOs. Maybe Tony Stark looks like he’s having a blast heading an empire but that’s romantization of the job. The job takes as much time as he wastes doing R&D on his armor (ie almost all awake time). No family life whatsoever, and your social life is also your job life (ie your social life is for business, you wine and dine your clients).

And voila.

Not relevant; even assuming that DV occurs symmetricaly, men still have a better chance at being financially independent. This is an advantage for men.

Not in 2013. Try again.

Reading comprehension; you has non (which is funny since you repeatedly accuse me of strawmanning). I said they need it less, primarily because of financial independence.

They need it just as much. Otherwise going away with children is called kidnapping, and she (the abuser) wins, he has ZERO recourse, and he’s even laughed at instead of helped. But hey at least he can drink Pepsi instead of Royal Crown Cola.

So, in abstract, women are more moral and virtuous. In practice, they’re bitches who had it coming.

So in abstract, women are considered by most, to be moral and virtuous (unable and unwilling to inflict violence on anyone). In practice, they need to get out a knife, or a gun (with him unarmed) to be considered bitches, and only by him and/or other witnesses. He had it coming will be the refrain from everyone else, including law. Jodi Arias tried the “he abused me” defense. And escaped the death penalty, because she has a vagina. Would be too bad to kill her. Guys who had their penises severed get laughed at by mainstream TV, and the perp isn’t considered a bitch by and large (nor she jailed).

“Otherwise” being a strict and narrow set of looks and behaviour.

Wrong. I’m androgynous. You know what this means? I have small breasts, no hips, no make-up, I don’t do gossip, spas, or talk behind people’s back. I also don’t play with dolls (nor as a kid). I also wear dresses rarely enough.

And I’m still assumed 1000x more virtuous than my brothers or boyfriend.

I linked you to paper’s written by feminist lawyers advocating for changes in the current laws to be more egalitarian and to get rid of the implied victomhood of women. Feminists are doing stuff to combat the status quo; that you refuse to recognize them is irrelevant.

Why aren’t there more feminists considering NOW to be anti-feminist on the same level as Hoff Sommers and Warren Farell? I mean Janice Raymond and Germaine Greer are considered more acceptably feminists than those two, and the latter are millions time more hateful towards men (which is not equality). See how no one cares.

Got it the other way around, Schala, in your haste to put up the strawmen.

Ally won’t call himself a feminist not because of the feminists, but because of the folks like you who build up the strawmen and will call him a ‘white knight’ and ‘mangina’ and all the other lovely hateful terms spewed at the men who actually believe in equality and treating women like people.

I don’t call people mangina. And I only call people white knights if they defend obviously the wrong party out of some misguided sense of genitalia-based honor (ie vagina = worth defending) in a dispute where the wrongful party is obviously not the one defended.

I do believe in equality, and treating women AND MEN like people. Apparently the “and men” part makes me hateful.

Shitty cops can be in many situations, often involving minorities (women are not a minority), abusing their authority, beating up people in anger (not professional) even those who don’t resist.

Doesn’t mean the system isn’t rigged to favor female victims (and sometimes even perpetrators) in DV, offering them ANY help at all.

Your sister could also have directly contacted the shelter. Something any man could not possibly have done (unless he likes being called a wife beater). Something trans women would have lots of trouble doing (unless she wants to be called a man, thus a wife beater).

Who, exactly, are these ‘feminists’ you are citing? Sara Fucking Palin?

here:

Sheila Jeffreys (born 1948) is a lesbian feminist scholar and political activist, known for her analysis of the history and politics of sexuality in Britain. She is a professor in Political Science at the University of Melbourne in Australia. Jeffreys’s argument that the “sexual revolution” on men’s terms contributed less to women’s freedom than to their continued oppression has both commanded respect and attracted intense criticism.[1][2][3][4] Jeffreys argues that transsexuals reproduce oppressive gender roles and mutilate their bodies through sex reassignment surgery. Some of Jeffrey’s other controversial positions are that lesbian culture has been negatively affected by emulating the sexist influence of the gay male subculture of dominant/submissive sexuality, and that women suffering pain in pursuit of beauty is a form of submission to patriarchal sadism.

She’s considered a feminist, and she’s cited by people who operate a network of rape crisis shelters in British Columbia, Canada, as an authority and a good point of view, on feminism. She might be fringe, but her supporters are not.

I don’t believe you are trans, if that is what you are implying you are. You are not a woman, and you have not spent any amount of time living as a woman. You have never attempted to see things from the perspective of a woman, nor have you ever tried to walk a mile in a woman’s shoes.

If you think women aren’t shamed over clothing choices, you also have apparently never even observed women.

Because they deny male victimhood. I mean, nothing as weak and pathetic as a woman could ever hurt a man, right?

What a crock of shit. How the fuck do you free someone from stereotypes by reinforcing them? “They shouldn’t have too”? Please. Of course not, after all, they “have people for that”, right? If they shouldn’t have to deal wiht this for them selves, why on earth should anyone else?

How am I reinforcing stereotypes? Men responding to misogyny need not be predicated on any assumption of female inability or incompetence.

And no one should have to deal with this shit. Not women and not men. But the shit’s there, and I’d like to see it gone. Simple empathy is reason enough.

Because they deny male victimhood. I mean, nothing as weak and pathetic as a woman could ever hurt a man, right?

Better have him ridiculed as weak and pathetic than actually open shelters for hi. Says patriarchy.

Better have him not have services, because it would take some of our funding away! Says feminism, the ones on the field, getting grant money (don’t agree, shoo them away, I have zero influence on them).

I don’t believe you are trans, if that is what you are implying you are. You are not a woman, and you have not spent any amount of time living as a woman. You have never attempted to see things from the perspective of a woman, nor have you ever tried to walk a mile in a woman’s shoes.

If you think women aren’t shamed over clothing choices, you also have apparently never even observed women.

Too fucking bad. I’m still a trans woman. I’ve presented and been seen as female since 2005. Legally with my name since 2010, though the sex marker is still intact, so they (the government) call me Mr *female first name* without blinking, in their official letters.

I said over most clothing choices. Not all.

I can wear 90% of my wardrobe without even drawing undue attention. My lolita fashion dress will draw freakshow-type attention, because it’s outlandish and rare to see. I have a very short skort, that can also draw undue attention, maybe the wrong kind then.

I can choose to wear clothing based on my degree of being comfortable in the venue, with whom it will happen, what formality it has, and what I want to express. I have at least two dozen options, and my wardrobe is small (and cheaply garnished).

Men, well they can wear the standard penguin outfit for formal stuff, or have 2-3 choices for casual stuff that won’t get him either laughed at or beaten for it. Or he can go all Dennis Rodman on us, and if he can’t pull it off, get beaten up. I could also say David Bowie circa Labyrinth, quite flamboyant this Jareth. Loves the outfit. Still recognized most men would get the shit beaten out of them for wearing it in 98% of subcultures (just not drag subculture).

But go ahead and tell him he’s lucky he can’t express himself, because it could come with the cost of being judged by other people for it.

Newsflash: He’s judged by other people for it if he even so much as deviates from a very narrow range of normality. He won’t be slut-shamed, he’ll be assaulted. And then blamed for it “What did you think!”

I don’t believe you are trans, if that is what you are implying you are. You are not a woman, and you have not spent any amount of time living as a woman. You have never attempted to see things from the perspective of a woman, nor have you ever tried to walk a mile in a woman’s shoes.

If you think women aren’t shamed over clothing choices, you also have apparently never even observed women.

You can fuck right off with this shit. Schala is perfectly entitled to her own experiences as a women, whether they represent yours or not.

Schala

Better have him ridiculed as weak and pathetic than actually open shelters for hi. Says patriarchy.

For the record, male DV shelters (with services for their children) do exist, though unfortunately rare.

I think this is about as far as this conversation can go. You wanna just drop this for now?

Patrick Brown loves science, and quite right too! It gives us a framework for determining truth.

It appears he is insinuating that anything which is not falsifiable is not worth our time. If you can see that something is true, why would you care about proving it false?.

Patrick, If you can see evidence that we live in a culture that gives support to the cognitive loopholes that non-consensual sex-havers use to justify behaviour which violates the havee’s agency, and shifts responsibility to the havee, and the description of such a culture is rape culture, why the holy living fuck would you care about proving rape culture false?

If you don’t like the name of the “slogan”, come up with a better one, or, even better, help solve the described problem so that the “slogan” becomes defunct. Wringing your hands and softly grunting that we cant scientifically be certain that there is even a problem is a weak tactic to avoid engaging with reality.

I will sit down and read that study in detail tomorrow, but did you notice that the study explicitly looks at the disparities of the gender gaps by country rather than looking for inequality per se. Its truncated because the study is only looking at areas and countries where there is a negative gap and determining what that gap is. You might be missing the point of the study and may indadvertedly (or perhaps purposefully?) be using it to justify presuppositions…

Never mind. Im sure you could commision a study to find out precisely how much men have got a bad deal, relatively speaking of course.

hjhornbeck: Considering that Sweden’s minister of equality from 2006 to until just January this year, when she quit her minister job, didn’t label herself a feminist, and the fact that a large portion of the other ministers, including our Prime minister, didn’t either, I think you should recheck your sources.

Feminism in has been in a pretty much constant decline since 2005ish here in Sweden, following suit after the documentary “Könskriget” (the gender war), the farce-like first congress of the newly formed political party “Feministiskt Initiativ” (Feminist Initiative), and numerous controversial political proposals, like special taxes for men, from high profile feminist politicians.

There was a time when every politician here in Sweden had to be a feminist or lose votes, but it has passed, and today you can see high profile feminists like Maria Sveland lamenting “Göran Person, come back, everything is forgiven!” (Göran P was our former PM, who received a lot of sneers from feminists when he claimed he also was one).
Today, if you ask, each and every politician will say that they are firmly for equality for men and women, but a large portion of them will not call themselves feminists, many instead choosing to label themselves humanist or similar, like for example our current minister of culture & sports.

It appears he is insinuating that anything which is not falsifiable is not worth our time. If you can see that something is true, why would you care about proving it false?.

Patrick, If you can see evidence that we live in a culture that gives support to the cognitive loopholes that non-consensual sex-havers use to justify behaviour which violates the havee’s agency, and shifts responsibility to the havee, and the description of such a culture is rape culture, why the holy living fuck would you care about proving rape culture false?

If it can’t be proven false, it’s a belief, dogma. A religious experience.

To make rape culture scientific, you would have to find qualifiers that make it possible to find a culture devoid of it, hypothetical or real. Same for patriarchy theory, or male privilege.

You have to describe how it’s non-existence could be proven by concrete enough criteria that it can actually be done. So we can say society A is patriarchal, society B is not. Saying all societies ever created in the past or future are patriarchal, is circular. Tells us nothing about what patriarchal means, or how to achieve post-patriarchal ones.

Its truncated because the study is only looking at areas and countries where there is a negative gap and determining what that gap is.

Unless men are the negative gap, then let’s not look at this, it’s fine, biology, everything-alright, let’s leave it that way.

1) extremely feminine gay men who like sex so much they transition to have sex with even more men (because there are more straight men than there are gay men)

2) heterosexual men so perverted by the idea of themselves as women (as in a fetish) that they transition to fulfill their fetish, and this explains why they still prefer female partners

He considers category 1 to be more desirable, since he (and Bailey in his book) qualifies them as younger, more feminine-looking, more seen as cis and more sexually attractive (to straight men). Category 2 is whoever doesn’t fit in category 1, or they’re lying.

That’s a theory that can’t ever be proven false, you’re #1, #2, or you’re lying. There would have to be a #3 – none of these responses, to make the theory falsifiable, and thus worth science.

Ray Blanchard is still head of the gender identity section of the DSM V subcommittee. God knows why he got handed this responsibility.

Patriarchy is the government.
Patriarchy sets up and supports councils “on equality and women”.
Patriarchy gives funds to feminist works like DV shelters and lots of feminist stuff (organizations mostly).
Patriarchy funds, in its public universities, women’s studies programs.

Whoa, you’ve got a badly distorted view of patriarchy there! It’s not some cabal of men cackling in a corner, but a self-sustaining organically formed social system. If you were to draw a circle around every single person who was a part of the patriarchy in your country, it would encompass EVERY person. Not just those in power, not just the religious nuts who rob women of choice, and not just the blatantly sexist asshats who pop up in news stories from time to time. That’s why it’s so difficult to get rid of.

You’ll be asked/told that every time you disagree. Because you couldn’t possibly come to another conclusion through a logical process, but only through ignorance.

Oh I see, you’re arguing “shut up and listen” is a silencing tactic; if you disagree, you must shut up, if you agree, then you may speak. Well, if that’s the case, it should be easy to find an example where it’s deployed in that matter.

Can you find anywhere I’ve used the word “dogma”? I used “doctrine”, which means simply “what is taught”.

Whoops, sorry about that! Looks like you intended it the same way, however:

But scientifically, no, they are not “strong hypothesis with plenty of data to back them up”.

Funny, that. Just recently, I was looking at a meta-study on the gendered wage gap:

Our EconLit search led to 1541 references. In the next step, titles and abstracts of the articles were evaluated to find out whether in fact a gender wage gap was estimated. Theoretical papers or those obviously covering a different topic were excluded in a first round. This left us with 457 articles. These papers were examined carefully whether they presented an empirical estimate of the gender wage differential or sufficient information to calculate it. Some papers were only descriptive, reporting just mean wage ratios without any regression analysis, others presented wage decompositions only concerning race, marital status, or work time status (full/part time). Yet another group of authors calculated differences in wage differentials between countries or different points in time, but did not provide explicit information also on the national, static wage differential. Eventually, the desired estimates could be gained from 263 articles.Weichselbaumer, Doris, and Rudolf Winter‐Ebmer. “A Meta‐Analysis of the International Gender Wage Gap.” Journal of Economic Surveys 19.3 (2005): 479-511.

So you’re proposing that in forty years of research, spanning dozens of countries, not a single researcher thought to get rid of a methodology that

guarantees it will find only inequality against women by “truncat[ing] data at the equality benchmark”, i.e. counting as equal situations where inequality favours women.

Or maybe you are proposing a vast global conspiracy of feminists, which has systematically planted false evidence of patriarchy in tens of thousands of studies? It would have been easier to fake the moon landings…

I’d prefer the scientific, falsifiable version. Mail it to me when you invent it.

I only call it patriarchy to be on the same wavelength, I disagree with the name, or the way feminism claims it works.

I prefer to call it ‘the system’, and claim its supported by everyone, gives different, but complementary benefits to men and women, for fitting their different gender roles. The game has changed since widespread contraception was available (self-abortion was always more or less available, if only more risky – it didn’t change things). This opened the way to removing restrictions on women as caregivers first and foremost. But since men are not considered on par, women are still considered the better caregiver regardless.

People at the top, the 1%, the oligarchy, our benevolent tyrants, under the guise of Reaganomics disguising itself as Noblesse Oblige, but really being a Screw You I Got Mine (trickle down never works, greed is like that), wants to perpetuate the system. For their own benefit. And they don’t care about members of their own sex. Feminism, at least the vocal parts (which radical feminism often is) is a tool to further their aims. It pretends to give female voters what they want, while not really solving the problem at all.

It’s much like someone being hired to “pretend” to fix a hole in the road. Without even trying to prevent more holes being formed.

The system benefits the 1% because war of the sexes is entertaining (it sells), it is prescriptive in roles (easy to control and manipulate their sheep), and everyone forgets who’s the real enemy (guess who?).

There is a reason the Romans had “bread and games”. This is our form of anti-revolution measure. A safety valve to let the appearance of equality and fairness appear. The whole “we can go from poor to rich” class mobility illusion of the US is usually just that. There is more upward financial mobility in Europe. Our bread and games are having the illusion of a middle-class, lottery, a bit of charities on the side, and the hope of things eventually getting better if you work really hard, while fighting between the sexes for who’s the sicker and most untrustworthy.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory? I find it a lot more plausible than “a system by men and women to benefit men at the expense of women”.

Feminism, at least the vocal parts (which radical feminism often is) is a tool to further their aims. It pretends to give female voters what they want, while not really solving the problem at all.

It’s much like someone being hired to “pretend” to fix a hole in the road. Without even trying to prevent more holes being formed.

By this I mean, it let off cranks who are really conservatives right-wings disguised as extreme leftists, decide theories of male wrongdoing and female victimhood. They called it the Duluth Model. Those same people also made Patriarchy Theory, the one controlled only by men where women are at best pawns unable to go against their programming (not the one advocated by 3rd wave, at least in definition). They also invented male privilege, and the weirder elements invented male energy and co-opted female-reproductive pagan ideas to promote female superiority.

Those weirder elements are the ones directing Michigan’s Womyn Music Festival, for example. The ones directing Vancouver Rape Relief. And probably many other government funded shelters and organization promoting radical feminism while pretending to help victims (I bet some are helped, but it’s not because of the ideology – it’s in spite of it).

The one who opened my eyes to this possibility of radical feminists really being conservatives in drag, was Amazon Heart, who went from Quiverfull homeschooling 11 kids, to radfem of the most man-hating kind. Captured in the comic presented in 2005 on Alas a blog when their attitude towards trans women is shown to be the exact same brand of broken record essentialism. Their attitude towards men is also extremely similar. They only differ on deciding who should rule.

Conservatives say that men are beasts, savages, rapists, neanderthals, after only one thing…but they’re also useful, ambitious and easily manipulated. Thus they should rule, or at least have the illusion of it.

Radical feminists say that men are beasts, savages, rapists, neanderthals, after only one thing…and they should be gotten rid of for this reason. Period.

Both agree women are more moral, less beastly, more angelic, less sexual, non-violent and more refined.

Government and the 1% agree to finance and support radical feminists, because, under the guise of “equality for women”, they don’t stop DV (more than half of victims are outright ignored, the cycle of abuse continues – also being shown empathy can help to show empathy to others afterwards), they don’t stop rape (same deal), and the campaigns of prevention of violence only heighten the already very present (and very conservative) fear of strange men who – you guessed it – are only after one thing, probably violent, more sexual. Both the left and the right spit on men this way. Tell someone he’s a monster enough and he’ll find corresponding to your idea of him to be at least somewhat comforting. Tell someone she’s a victim enough and same deal.

Perpetuated by patriarchy TM, through its tool: sympathy for women, by using the radical voices (since the moderates don’t do stuff apparently).

So, B-Lar, you think our culture is a rape culture, and you think it’s self-evident. I don’t agree, but we’re talking about the issue of falsifiability. “If you can see that something is true, why would you care about proving it false?” is the definition of confirmation bias. You believe it to be true, so you only look for evidence in favour of it. That’s why the scientific method insists on falsifiability. I repeat, what hypothetical observation would show that a given, hypothetical culture was not a rape culture? How could you distinguish a rape culture from a not-rape-culture? Without that, it has no explanatory value.

hjhornbeck, the wage gap is not something I dispute. While there are arguments about what causes it, it clearly has data to back it up, and is falsifiable. You haven’t disputed that the study I linked to was designed to find a pre-determined conclusion and is therefore bad science. The conspiracy theory accusation, like the implication of creationism, is an ad hominem. So are WithinThisMind’s disgraceful personal attacks on Schala. I don’t claim to be a master of logic or science, but the recourse to logical fallacies and lack of understanding of the scientific method from commenters on a sceptic blog have surprised me.

WithinThisMInd: “And funnily enough, the ‘most influential’ members are the ones who agree with me.”

Citation needed.

“But instead, you’ll go to the loonie ‘rad-fems’ and pretend they are the voice of feminism. Or you’ll just build up strawpeople and pretend those are the voices. Either way, it just proves that you know you’ve got nothing, or you wouldn’t have to lie.”

Don’t blame me just because you are ignorant of the very movement you are a voluntary member of. You need to go and educate yourself about feminism.

The Fawcett Society, as anyone who knows about feminism knows, is practically the ‘go to’ feminist group in the UK if you want a ‘feminist perspective’ on an issue (On their website: “The Fawcett Society is the UK’s leading campaign for equality between women and men”), such as proposed changes to parental leave. They contributed to the proposed changes to parental leave to be dropped by the government, making life harder for both new mothers and fathers, so you can see why I get pissed when some nobody feminist on a blog claims that feminism is all about equality because that individual feminist posts rants on the internet – woopeefuckingdo. Citation: http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1147967/point-need-parental-leave.

They oppose shared parenting based on a sexist stereotype where the typical man is abusive and a cry of “Won’t somebody think of the children”. The proposal is “an assumption of shared parenting”: it is not automatic and abusive men will not get shared parenting. This fact, which I doubt they are unaware of, highlights the sexism at play in Fawcett’s advocacy. It shows that they are not egalitarian and since the Fawcett Society is the most influential feminist group in UK politics today, it means that feminism *as a political movement* is not egalitarian. I have no doubt that there are other groups, possibly with more egalitarian views, but who gives a shit: we never hear a peep out of them and they certainly don’t influence the debate.

As for the most influential individual feminist in the UK: That has to be Harriet Harman, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and former Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman:

“As part of a proposed Equality Bill, Harman announced a consultation on changing the existing discrimination laws, including options for reverse discrimination in employment. Under the proposals, employers would be legally allowed to discriminate in favour of a job candidate on the basis of their race or gender where the candidates were otherwise equally qualified.”

And:

“Harman has said she does “not agree with all-male leaderships” because men “cannot be left to run things on their own. “”

These are the most influential feminists in the UK today. As a feminist these are your leaders whether you like it or not; the fact that you disagree with them is inconsequential. You choose to identify with them. You choose to lie for them. You choose to support them in their work by identifying as a feminist; they get their credibility from people like you.

Don’t live in the UK, dingbat. Nope, sorry, no, those aren’t my leaders. Never heard of them before. Obviously, they aren’t as influential as you claim. I’d wager most feminists in the UK would say the same.

Still lying. No, you can’t wear 90% of your wardrobe without ‘drawing undue attention’. Being female in public draws ‘undue attention’. Just having a feminine voice can draw ‘undue attention’ and harassment, regardless of what you are wearing. Just clicking ‘female’ as your gender choice on a forum can draw ‘undue attention’ and harassment by people who will never see or hear you. If you had spent time presenting as female in public, you’d know you are just as likely to get harassed wearing sweatpants as you are wearing a short skirt. When I was sexually assaulted, I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. But thank you for your little bit of victim blaming there.

Yes, he is judged by other people for it. The vast majority of them men who think he isn’t ‘macho’ and will beat the shit out of him for it. Thank you for providing a wonderful example of how patriarchy hurts men too. All the more reason to be a feminist.

Schala can make whatever claims Schala wants. Schala is still not being honest about what a woman experiences, or Schala would have known better than to make the claims Schala made.

Schala has never spent time presenting as a woman in public or attempted to see things from the PoV of a woman in public, or Schala would have known Schala’s examples of ‘female privilege’ were all complete bullshit.

Schala’s examples were like pretending ‘ladies drink free’ night is an example of ‘female privilege’, completely forgetting the context is the bars are trying to draw women in so that they can be eye-candy and objects for the men to paw over, thus rather than an example of ‘female privilege’, it’s an example of how patriarchy hurts women by objectifying them and acting like males are entitled to do so.

Nor is Schala entitled to use the equivalent of ‘but I have a black friend’ argument to dismiss the experiences of every other woman in the world, especially when Schala isn’t drawing from ‘experience’ but from MRA talking points.

So, basically, what this whole spiel boils down to, Ally, is that you are essentially a ‘chill girl’. You acknowledge that there might just be a problem, but it can’t possibly be so bad and we girls should be more willing to show a little compassion and understanding and meet you bros in the middle.

Just having a feminine voice can draw ‘undue attention’ and harassment, regardless of what you are wearing.

Especially if you’re a gay man. I haven’t had problems regarding my voice.

Just clicking ‘female’ as your gender choice on a forum can draw ‘undue attention’ and harassment by people who will never see or hear you.

Clicking female is a choice, as is the forum(s) you visit. Some people are assholes, some forums are congregations of assholes. And the fact that they won’t ever see or hear you is a reason INCREASING the chances of harassment. Anonymity helps all assholes, not just those who troll or hate women.

If you had spent time presenting as female in public, you’d know you are just as likely to get harassed wearing sweatpants as you are wearing a short skirt.

I’m not harassed in public.

When I was sexually assaulted, I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. But thank you for your little bit of victim blaming there.

Strawww mannnn

Yes, he is judged by other people for it. The vast majority of them men who think he isn’t ‘macho’ and will beat the shit out of him for it.

Doesn’t matter one bit who enforces the gender role. The prison of it is the only thing that matters.

Would you think FGM is okay because women impose it on their daughters? Didn’t think so.

Thank you for providing a wonderful example of how patriarchy hurts men too. All the more reason to be a feminist.

Since feminism only helps men indirectly (by helping their sisters, daughters, wives etc), I’m not sure it’s to the benefit of men to be feminists as opposed to egalitarians with no label at all (like me).

Note that I’m avoiding most social situations I can, and due to social anxiety (irrational fear of EVERYONE when outside, yes, including women, even children), usually don’t go out alone, unless I have to.

I don’t go out to bars, I don’t go out to clubs, I currently don’t work, I don’t go out to public libraries, I rarely go shopping for non-utilitarian stuff (outside grocery and shower curtains and the likes), including for clothing.

And I live in a town with only 100k people, not a large center, nor a “everyone knows everyone else” tiny village. I’ve been in Montreal (2 million in the city proper), but no smaller town than 75k people.

I was harassed more as a young teenager perceived as male, beaten up, and no one intervening. It was worse in childhood, and there comes my social anxiety. I was also beaten by girls sometimes. I was (and am) pacifist.

Schala’s examples were like pretending ‘ladies drink free’ night is an example of ‘female privilege’, completely forgetting the context is the bars are trying to draw women in so that they can be eye-candy and objects for the men to paw over, thus rather than an example of ‘female privilege’, it’s an example of how patriarchy hurts women by objectifying them and acting like males are entitled to do so.

And conscription is male privilege, dying earlier male privilege, and I could go on.

This kind of logic is backwards.

Start with a fact and work backwards to “how could this affect women worse”.

If you did that with male privileges, they would all have “but, that’s really an example of how patriarchy hurts men”, for each and everyone of them.

Schala has never spent time presenting as a woman in public or attempted to see things from the PoV of a woman in public, or Schala would have known Schala’s examples of ‘female privilege’ were all complete bullshit.

I can only see things from my point of view of a woman in public, I’m not Everywoman, nor are you.

“Because they deny male victimhood. I mean, nothing as weak and pathetic as a woman could ever hurt a man, right?”

Exactly. it’s misandrist and misogynist at the same time. and as Schala points out, that misandry is expressed as male disposability.

As for reinforcing stereotypes, if that’s what you meant, then we probably agree. I was responding to you saying that women shouldn’t have to deal with discrimination, and since discrimination exists and has to be dealt with one way or another, that means someone should have to do it for women. And that’s the old Man as Protector role. But it appears that’s not what you meant.

If you mean that discrimination is systemic and so we all have to fight it together, then we really agree.

Getting you girls to show compassion for men would upend the whole patriarhal gender system. That would be the real gender revolution. But you Ladies’ Auxiliary of the Patriarchy types are too comfortable with the way things are to go that far.

Finally Feminism 101 talks of patriarchy as one where “relations between the sexes are more complicated than unidirectional oppression of one sex” is simply false. It IS assumed to be men oppressing women, period.

Sally might think its a straw-patriarchy, but then it’s a very widely supported definition of patriarchy.

Finally Feminism 101 talks of patriarchy as one where “relations between the sexes are more complicated than unidirectional oppression of one sex” is simply false. It IS assumed to be men oppressing women, period.

Sally might think its a straw-patriarchy, but then it’s a very widely supported definition of patriarchy.

Wait, so do you yell at physicists who don’t use the “rubber sheet” analogy of gravity in their papers, because the public accepts it? Do you criticize atheists who argue they don’t hate the gods, because most people think they do? Do you take biologists to task for failing to accept the “ladder” view of evolution, because that’s contrary to what most people think?

Do you honestly think lay opinion is more accurate than expert opinion, for the sole reason that it’s more common?

Actually I’m not kidding. Someone who thinks they are advocating for change for our culture but who still thinks in terms of male hyperagency and female hypoagency – talks about female victimihood but denies male victimhood (see that sneering remark about “compassion”; see also dogfights around comparisons between FGM and MGM for one example, or domestic violence for another) is kidding themselves. Male hyperagency and female hypoagency is the basic structure of the tradtional gender system, and anyone who structures their positions around those assumptions is reinforcing the culture, not trying to change it.

Someone saying “boys, do what the girls tell you” is doing what patriarchy does.

Because patriarchy totally values female authority.

Ginkgo

Someone who thinks they are advocating for change for our culture but who still thinks in terms of male hyperagency and female hypoagency – talks about female victimihood but denies male victimhood (see that sneering remark about “compassion”; see also dogfights around comparisons between FGM and MGM for one example, or domestic violence for another) is kidding themselves.

Reading comprehension; you has none.

From WithinThisMind:

“Funny, I’m a feminist, and I can’t recall doing any such thing. In fact, I distinctly recall standing by a male friend’s side, testifying on his behalf, and letting him crash on my couch after he was physically abused by his female spouse in what was most assuredly NOT self-defense.”

“Yes, he is judged by other people for it. The vast majority of them men who think he isn’t ‘macho’ and will beat the shit out of him for it. Thank you for providing a wonderful example of how patriarchy hurts men too. All the more reason to be a feminist.”

“I’m a feminist, and I have often attacked how child support laws are currently set up. I’ve attacked the issue from multiple directions such as how easy it is for men to get out of paying child support and how it is set up to disproportionately damage the men who actually want to be good fathers and caretakers for their children. ”

So she recognizes the reality of male DV, is against toxic masculinity, and is against the way child support laws can harm fathers. Do try to keep up, Ginkgo.

Patriarchy does say that men should make their wives happy. Stereotypes, which are generally conservative, also say that women hold the REAL reins in relationships. And many men agree. The jokes usually run around a theme of the guy asking for the permission to laugh about a joke that might offend her in the slightest (by the stand up guy saying it, even).

This is not considered weird, or backwards, it’s considered the normal, often preferable way of things (all those “women would run things better” come from there too).

The opposite, the chauvinistic wife beater controlling husband, is rarely applauded by anyone but the most backwards. Even the “dad decides everything” (without any violence physical or otherwise) is considered as obviously objectively bad. “Mom decides everything” is neutral to good. Except for his reputation.

The “issue” of falsifiability is an important one, but I think you are using it to avoid investigating your preconceptions. I do not think “rape culture” is self evident… I have observed evidence which has convinced me that the phenomenon is true, and it turns out that someone had already given it a name.

Falsifiability is most effectively used to disprove universal statements. “All catholics believe that the pope is infallible.” is a universal statement which can be falsified. So is “All catholics condone child rape when performed by clergy”. However, “Some catholics, by way of blaming the children, defend clergymen who rape children and this fucking disgusts me” is not. Only one of these statements is true, but according to you it is the least scientific one.

Anyone claiming that we shouldnt look at a moral or sociological problem because it isnt scientific enough is a heartless asshole. I feel comfortable making that statement despite the fact that we do not have an absolute value for “heartless asshole”. That could be because I know that reason and empathy must balance each other for truth to flourish but I haven’t seen a study done on the subject so it probably isn’t true, right?

Confirmation bias is where you only give weight to evidence which confirms a preexisting belief. I came to my conclusions about rape culture after seeing and hearing evidence which was counter to my preexisting beliefs. I denied it, then I was shocked, then I was disgusted. Then it turns out that the reason the problem persists is because a huge majority simply dont want to believe it could be true, finding all sorts of interesting reasons to justify their disinterest in investigating.

Actually I think the charge of confirmation bias might stick better to you than to me…

How the hell do you keep it up? I only seem to manage one a night but you seem to have a whole ton of spoons!

Me and Schala don’t agree on much.

Oh, and with regards to your discussion above, there is sociological evidence showing that rape victims tend to get negative reactions for being raped, and there is evidence that negative reactions reduce the amount of emotional support available (that is, if person A reacts negatively, person B tends to react worse then they would have otherwise). Since such reactions and propagation are part of what’s defined as rape culture (and since the tendency and propagation of such reactions is falsifiable), there is scientific evidence for rape culture.

And that’s just what I found with 20 seconds on Google. There is a bevy of sociological data demonstrating the existence of rape culture.

Dont join feminism = you were against equality from the very start, you bastards.

No. WithinThisMind read too much into Ally’s post. From her mistaken position, she attacked an idea that was never presented (i.e. that gender inequality “can’t possible be that bad”). Denying gender inequality is the issue. “Not joining feminism” was only brought up because she mistakenly thought that such denial was Ally’s reason.

In any case, “you have to identify as feminist to be for equality” is not an idea WithinThisMind holds (I know from experience, having seen her comment around this network), nor does it equate to “boys, do what women tell you”.

Evidence I have observed tells me rape of men, especially by women, is even MORE minimized, told it didn’t happen, wasn’t traumatic, and that “he’s a man so he obviously wanted it”. Heck even fighting off his attacker (successful or not) will get him shat on “Why is he refusing free (heterosexual) sex? Is he gay?”

Yet rape culture is almost universally presented as something only or mostly affecting women (the same way rape is presented often). It’s also often presented as a maleness problem.

Falsifiability is most effectively used to disprove universal statements. “All catholics believe that the pope is infallible.” is a universal statement which can be falsified.

Maybe for lay people. Falsifiability is still something fairly useful for people able to posit hypothesis.

However, “Some catholics, by way of blaming the children, defend clergymen who rape children and this fucking disgusts me” is not. Only one of these statements is true, but according to you it is the least scientific one.

You introduced an emotional argument, and therefore killed all potential science from it. Science = logic, no appeal to emotions. Also, statements often are not stuff we can say is scientific or isn’t. Hypothesis, theories, conclusions are. Lots of statements are opinions.

Anyone claiming that we shouldnt look at a moral or sociological problem because it isnt scientific enough is a heartless asshole.

But this isn’t what feminism is doing. Feminism claims to have already done the science behind patriarchy theory, rape culture, male privilege, and have come to the conclusion that it always advantages men overall. They have come to this conclusion unscientifically. This conclusion is UNNECESSARY to work towards equality, as well.

You can just fix whatever problems you find, for men, for women, for trans people, etc, about gender. You don’t need to play oppression olympics beforehand to determine who’s worthy of your movement’s time, or even worse, the government’s time and money.

This conclusion also distorts reality, prevents advancement of men’s rights and fixing problems with men’s gender roles (problems for men, not problems men inflict on others only). Because the conclusion claims they already have the upper hand, already have it all, their role is actually so superior it has so few flaws (even though “it hurts men too”) that we can fix them in a million years, when we’re done with women’s role. Then men are compared to white people and women to black people, to show men are just whining about having it all and women getting something finally, when it’s not that at all.

Confirmation bias is where you only give weight to evidence which confirms a preexisting belief. I came to my conclusions about rape culture after seeing and hearing evidence which was counter to my preexisting beliefs.

Confirmation bias is part of the reason we don’t think men can be victims of rape. Only evidence of men as perpetrators is used in analyzing rape culture, thus we arrive at the (flawed) conclusion that men are unaffected by it.

I think I’m broadly with Ally, combined with the commenter earlier who said they simply didn’t find the term “feminist” very informative. I don’t call myself one, but I don’t object if someone says I am or am not one, and I don’t draw much in the way of conclusions about someone who either adopts or rejects the label. It’s just too vague, and I find it much more useful to talk about specific positions on specific issues.

Feminism seems to be a very broad tent containing both people whose views on gender I very much support, and those I find appalling. I don’t assume the latter represent all of feminism, but there seems no compelling reason to think they’re somehow the anomalies, and the people I agree with are the real feminists.

Yes, you can say something like “feminism is the belief in women’s equality” and reasonably expect people to be in favour of that (what, you’re *against* women’s equality? What kind of monster are you?). But it’s not actually very clear what that means: an abstract belief than men and women are of morally equal worth? A belief that they should be treated identically under the law? A belief that any given category of wealth/power/career path/life circumstances should have equal proportions of men and women? A belief that such proportionality should be a goal in itself, or just the expected outcome of equality in other areas?

It’s not that I don’t think individual feminists have more specific beliefs on these matters, just that the term in itself doesn’t tell you very much; indeed you can quite easily find, say, religious types who will readily state their firm belief in the equal moral worth of men and women .. and also that they think men are divinely ordained to be the heads of their household.

Nor of course is this some unique issue for feminism: as with “conservative” or “liberal”, the broader the term, the more people you can expect to encompass, but also the more internal disagreement you’ll have about what it actually means in practice. I just personally find “feminism” lies too far on the unhelpful side of the tradeoff; if other people don’t, I’m fine with that. But I do consequently think it’s misguided when people ignore that there is a tradeoff and regard adoption of the term as a moral obligation.

It’s not that I don’t think individual feminists have more specific beliefs on these matters, just that the term in itself doesn’t tell you very much; indeed you can quite easily find, say, religious types who will readily state their firm belief in the equal moral worth of men and women .. and also that they think men are divinely ordained to be the heads of their household.

You can find people who think and say they want equality between men and women, but will also say that women need more work on their issues, even exclusive work, because men “have it all”, without having looked at their issues. It’s a conclusion based on a flawed premise.

The flawed premise being derived from your misinterpreted/strawperson definition of ‘privilege’.

You prefer this:

Let’s look at ways women are disadvantaged in society.
Let’s NOT look at ways men are disadvantaged in society, or claim it will all go away if we fight the boogieman.
Proclaim side A is greater than side B, without even so much as looking at side B.

I tend to focus on men’s and trans issues (especially trans women’s) because those are often forgotten ones

I’m surprised you’ve never heard of transfeminism. It’s a branch of third-wave which has spent about twenty years critiquing essentialist bits of second-wave, and stumping for transgender issues. Since you’re a third wave feminist in all but name, this feminism seems like a perfect fit for you.

Addendum: I rather like this article from the SEP; it not only lays bare the cissexism that was unfortunately common in 70’s feminism, but also demonstrates how mainstream feminism began to embrace the views of transgendered people in the 90’s. That acceptance continues to this day.

I’m surprised you’ve never heard of transfeminism. It’s a branch of third-wave which has spent about twenty years critiquing essentialist bits of second-wave, and stumping for transgender issues. Since you’re a third wave feminist in all but name, this feminism seems like a perfect fit for you.

I did encounter it.

But we have differents, namely about male privilege and patriarchy.

I can’t critique those two core concepts without being excommunicated and declared an heretic (or if you prefer, declared anti-feminist and a MRA).

I do think male privilege exists, but my thinking female privilege also exists is too much. I also think the concept of patriarchy needs to be refined to actually mean something (for now it means: the source of everything bad, mostly (but not only) caused by men, for the benefit of men). It can’t be disproven. A society without patriarchy cannot exist, because it would need to be perfect without any oppression whatsoever, or it would be evidence of patriarchy.

Falsifiability is most effectively used to disprove universal statements.

You do not understand what falsifiability means in relation to the scientific method. It is not about disproving stuff, it’s about testing stuff, and telling the difference between accurate and inaccurate hypotheses. When you formulate a hypothesis, you need to consider and build in what you would expect to observe if your hypothesis is correct (make predictions), and what you would expect to observe if your hypothesis is wrong (falsifiability). That way, when you investigate further, if your predictions are confirmed that supports your hypothesis, but if falsification criteria are met you know you’ve made a mistake and will have to rethink and improve your hypothesis and thereby get closer to the truth. Science does this. That’s how you know something is science. Feminism, on the other hand, doesn’t do this, and is therefore merely rhetoric.

Anyone claiming that we shouldnt look at a moral or sociological problem because it isnt scientific enough is a heartless asshole. I feel comfortable making that statement despite the fact that we do not have an absolute value for “heartless asshole”. That could be because I know that reason and empathy must balance each other for truth to flourish but I haven’t seen a study done on the subject so it probably isn’t true, right?

Straw man, ad hom, assuming your conclusion, poisoning the well, appeal to emotion, false dichotomy. Like I say, for a sceptic blog, the understanding of argumentation among the commentators is appalling.

Feminism, on the other hand, doesn’t do this, and is therefore merely rhetoric.

From the wiki: “Rape culture is a concept which links rape and sexual violence to the culture of a society, and in which prevalent attitudes and practices normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.”

Oooh, excuse, tolerate and condone, eh?

Well, looking at some self reported data, about 60% of rapist use alcohol or other drugs to rape. This is the lowest number I’ve seen over the years (the second study at that link cited 77%), but we’ll abide by the conservative estimate. What’s interesting is that is that study doesn’t actually use the word “rape”. Similar studies that do use the word produce much smaller self reported rapists. More disturbingly, there is a tendency for the victims themselves to mislabel their rape. So most rape involves alcohol and there is a misconception that taking sexual advantage of someone intoxicated isn’t rape. The latter leads to toleration of rape qua rape (since one cannot oppose a given case of rape as rape if one doesn’t recognize it as rape).

Looking at the reaction of others, it was found that men tend to assign less blame than women to the perpetrator when alcohol is involved. Further, the respondents assigned greater responsibility to the victim. As a whole, people tend to view intoxicated women as sexually available or acceptable targets for assault*. In other words, they engaged (or would engage) in victim blaming (assigning whole or partial responsibility to the victim) should alcohol be involved. You may recognize victim blaming as a common aspect feminists discuss when discussing rape culture. Victim blaming also has the effect of hindering the recovery of rape victims.

Thus, rape in our culture has the tendency to be tolerated (by not recognizing the act as rape) or excused and/or condoned (by assigning responsibility to the victim).

1) Insults are not ad hominem fallacies. “You’re wrong because you’re a heartless asshole” is a fallacy; “You’re acting like a heartless asshole” is not.

2) No assumption was made.

3) There was no attempt to foster distrust or ridicule (maybe contempt). Further, “poisoning the well” only applies when the act occurs before the information is presented; since B-Lar was responding to you, poisoning the well was literally impossible.

4) “Emotions are important” is not “I’m right because of my emotions”.

5) No dichotomy was presented.

*This finding is not summarized in the preview given, but found later in the body. I’ll give you the quotes, as well as the studies they cited.

“Reactions to sexual assaults involving alcohol reveal a double standard in our society: Intoxication excuses men, but intoxicated women are perceived as bearing greater responsibility for being raped. Cultural indicia and recent scientific studies confirm that society views women who drink as sexually promiscuous and acceptable targets for sexual assault.[1] One of several studies documenting American attitudes toward women who drink shows that alcohol boosts estimations of a woman’s sexual availability.[2] In the study, students were shown videos of different dating situations, varied by whether the woman ordered an alcoholic drink. The subjects rated the woman who consumed alcohol as more aggressive, sexually available, and likely to engage in foreplay and sexual intercourse. This finding was true for both male and female viewers.[2]”

“The finding that many women perceive other drinking women as more sexually available[2] in no way proves the accuracy of that stereotype. Rather, it shows the pervasiveness of that myth. Studies found that most women neither are nor consider themselves more prone to engage in sexual behavior, which parallels the finding that women often insist that they mean “no,” but nevertheless believe that other women do not.[2]

It is a privilege to not be assumed to be incapable either physically or emotionally to deal with extreme circumstances such as war. It is a privilege to not be limited to the roles you must biologically fulfill (aka gender essentialism) during times when conscription is necessary (setting aside the whole other can of ethical worms conscription itself brings) such as having babies and raising children. To say that these were advantages conferred upon women in altruistic fashion denies the rationale for employing such an adherence to male-only conscripts: it was arbitrarily decided that ‘our’ women must be protected at all costs.

I’m sure transfeminism is fine and dandy for many woman-identified trans people. However, those trans people who have not or don’t want to, in the words of Natalie Reed, “kick their Y chromosome’s ass”, might feel differently.

I do think male privilege exists, but my thinking female privilege also exists is too much. I also think the concept of patriarchy needs to be refined to actually mean something (for now it means: the source of everything bad, mostly (but not only) caused by men, for the benefit of men).

We’ve debated this topic twice now. You’ve revealed that what you think about gender is almost identical to what a third-wave feminist believes, you just have some wild misconceptions about basic concepts like patriarchy. I’ve presented you with several links that explain patriarchy in greater detail. And rather than read them, you continue to push this bizarre straw version of patriarchy that you’ve blindly accepted from people who, at best, view you as a convenient stick to beat feminists with.

I can forgive being ignorant of something you’ve never heard of. But I find persistent ignorance in the face of education and evidence quite disgusting.

I’m sure transfeminism is fine and dandy for many woman-identified trans people. However, those trans people who have not or don’t want to, in the words of Natalie Reed, “kick their Y chromosome’s ass”, might feel differently.

Uh, by definition transgender people identify as the opposite sex, so a transgender woman would very much like to “kick their Y chomosome’s ass.” You’re confusing that with agendered or genderqueer.

We’ve debated this topic twice now. You’ve revealed that what you think about gender is almost identical to what a third-wave feminist believes, you just have some wild misconceptions about basic concepts like patriarchy. I’ve presented you with several links that explain patriarchy in greater detail.

I said I’m relying on Finally Feminism 101’s definition, and they are considered an authority online, on these matters. Their definition at least holds more weight than many others.

Uh, by definition transgender people identify as the opposite sex, so a transgender woman would very much like to “kick their Y chomosome’s ass.” You’re confusing that with agendered or genderqueer.

I understood that claim to mean that trans feminism is very much anti-man in ideology, much like mainstream feminism. Kick the Y chromosome’s ass is meant “engage in man-bashing”, or misandry. At least that’s my take on Iamcuriousblue’s comment.

To say that these were advantages conferred upon women in altruistic fashion denies the rationale for employing such an adherence to male-only conscripts: it was arbitrarily decided that ‘our’ women must be protected at all costs.

By defining disadvantages of maleness as actually being ADVANTAGES of maleness, and disadvantages of femaleness, people who do this lose all credibility, and then we can call female privilege anything at all, even if it clearly disadvantages women.

Being pressured to be thin is female privilege, because then people do stuff for you like lifting heavy furniture.

Patriarchy is one form of social stratification via a power/dominance hierarchy – an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a ranking of inferiorities) and its privileges. Societies can be (and usually are) patriarchal, oligarchal and plutocratic all at the same time, complicated by current and/or legacy features of sectarianism, imperialism and colonialism, so the gender hierarchy is only one source of social disparity. Because of the limited capacity of the word “patriarchy” to describe the full operation of intersecting oppressions, some now prefer to use the word “kyriarchy” instead, but it is not yet in common use. […]

Even in modern-rule-of-law countries with full legal sexual equality, there are still many patriarchal remnants in the way that men (as a group) seek to discourage women (as a group) from social independence and independent financial security. These remnant patriarchal traditions do more harm to women, on balance, than good.

Short answer: No, what is commonly called “female privilege” is better described as benevolent sexism. Systems like the draft and chivalry often seem advantageous to women at first glance, but when examined more closely they in fact reinforce sexist institutions that keep both women and men from true equality.

So no, proposing female privilege is not “too much,” it’s already been considered and discussed.

trans feminism is very much anti-man in ideology, much like mainstream feminism

I have presented evidence to the contrary. Are you going to rebut that at some point, or do you plan to continue repeating lies and half-truths like a young-Earth creationist?

The most important fact about a hypothesis is that it can’t, if you are arguing honestly then you can’t say that you predict with 100% certainty that a tossed coin will come up heads and with 100% certainty that it will come up tails. To be able to honestly claim to have made a prediction you must also claim to have predicted that the alternatives to that prediction aren’t true.

This is where the idea of falsifiability comes from. It’s a guard against an hypothesis that claims to predict everything, which in reality is equivalent to shrugging and saying “I have no idea”. This fact is also the foundation of evidence. If making certain observations makes you more confident that a hypothesis is true then it must be because you believe that making those observations is more likely if your hypothesis is true and less likely if it’s false. Because you can’t predict both heads and tails having some observations that are more likely if the hypothesis is true and less likely if its false must mean that there are alternative observations that are more likely if its false and less likely if its true. These would be evidence against the hypothesis.

All you have to do to show that the idea of rape culture is falsifiable is to explicitly say what a society that isn’t a rape culture would look like. Even if you care nothing about evidence (and good luck convincing anyone to support you if you don’t) then this is still important from an activist point of view because it gives the people who agree with you a direction to work in.

WithinThisMind: You do realise you are posting on a blog which focuses mainly on the UK and UK issues? And do you seriously believe no feminist in the UK has heard about Harman? What a fucking moron you are. You have no idea what you’re talking about, as is becoming evident throughout this thread.

And the fact that you’ve never heard of them, have no idea who your ideological leaders are and have failed to provide the citations I’ve requested just reiterates what I said in my last post: you need to go and educate yourself about feminism. As it stands now, by identifying as a feminist all you are achieving is giving people the credibility make changes which you claim you don’t agree with.

Patriarchy – Literally means the rule of the father and is generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms.

Sure sounds like what I said.

What I said above:
“the source of everything bad, mostly (but not only) caused by men, for the benefit of men”

“the source of everything bad” comes from assuming that any time something bad happens, gender roles, misogyny, misandry, conscription, problems with abortion, people thinking the male pill will have no demand, transphobia, etc, is ALL patriarchy.

As such nothing can be “NOT-patriarchy”, because as soon as something is bad for society, its from patriarchy.

Thus it’s unfalsifiable (can never be false), and unscientific.

Skeptics prefer using science to determine truth, rather than biblical-like terms that can’t ever be proven. The Museum of Creation likes to say that the Bible is the inerrant literal word of God (don’t worry if it’s been translated 20 times, losing meanings and inventing some, it’s still literal), that dinosaurs lived along with humans, and were not hostile to humans, that carbon-dating doesn’t work because God made things “already old”.

And the proof they got? The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.

Not exactly scientific.

Patriarchy is similar. Everything is made to fit the theory, rather than the theory made to fit the facts. This is begging the question.

Look at Ray Blanchard, his theory of autogynephilia. Completely unscientific. And he still did studies, and tests, and all that crap. He just didn’t do it right for it to be scientific at all.

Yet he’s still seen as some social scientist with special insight about trans people (whom he still works with, in Toronto), able to help in the gender identity section of the DSM V.

So, if scientific wackjobs like him can keep being on top, even after doing a crappy job, imagine nutters who make-up stuff from thin air and expect Believers, to follow them towards the truth, based on their word alone? Feminism as a movement didn’t start that way, but feminism as an ideology is that way nowadays. Unquestionable dogma, or you’re an heretic.

So no, proposing female privilege is not “too much,” it’s already been considered and discussed.

And dismissed as not really a privilege, unlike male privilege.

Their stance is basically:

Male privilege, the intentional effect of being men in patriarchy, don’t need to follow gender roles to get. Penis means you get it.

Female privilege the unintentional side-effect of being women in patriarchy, and only applies if you’re sufficiently feminine.

Both privileges are intentional or not, but not just half of it. Or male privilege is also benevolent sexism. Both only apply if you’re sufficiently gender conformist, with a few exceptions on both sides.

I have presented evidence to the contrary. Are you going to rebut that at some point, or do you plan to continue repeating lies and half-truths like a young-Earth creationist?

I’ve been more in contact with trans feminism than you, I presume. I know the truth of my experience, and feminist theory as a whole very much is anti-male. It blames masculinity, wether because of socialization or testosterone, for all ills, for all wars, for all violence, for all rapes. And erases all evidence that women can and do contribute to wars, to violence (including against men), and to rape (including against men, and against children).

Have you ever heard that 99% of rapists are men? That most rapists of men are also men? That DV against men is an extremely small number compared to DV against women, and mostly between gay men? That DV against lesbian women hardly ever happens, because of special feminine energy of altruism (I’ll admit this one is coming from a weird part of feminism, but they’re still considered feminists by every other feminist – I’m not).

Sorry I haven’t been around the past few days while this thread has been in full swing. Have really enjoyed catching up on the debate (and deleting some cunning spam that slipped through the net)

Just a general reminder, without pointing any fingers and without taking any moderation steps unless someone specifically asks me to…

A couple of things have happened on this thread which I think transgress the (admittedly very vague) lines of my requested guidelines for comments.

The first is that if someone defines themselves here, whether as male, female, trans or whatever else, I think it is bloody rude to refuse to accept that definition or to accuse them of lying.

The same will apply should anyone disclose other kinds of intimate personal anecdote, whether of experience of abuse or anything else.

The other thing is using direct personal abuse, such as calling someone a “fucking moron.”

Wherever the line is, both of those comments are well and truly on the wrong side of it.

I’m really grateful that most people, most of the time have been able to discuss these hot-button issues with relatively cool heads. I’m also very grtateful to those of you who have stepped in once or twice to rule a comment out of bounds. The best kind of community moderation is the community that moderates itself.

hjhornbeck, the wage gap is not something I dispute. While there are arguments about what causes it, it clearly has data to back it up, and is falsifiable.

Excellent. If we lived in an egalitarian society, then there should be no wage gap; if we lived in a patriarchy, then there should be a wage gap. Therefore you can falsify patriarchy by looking for a wage gap, and failing to find one. This means patriarchy is not a doctrine, as you claim, but a theory. Thank you, for proving yourself wrong.

The conspiracy theory accusation, like the implication of creationism, is an ad hominem.

A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses a person, group or organization of having caused or covered up an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact.

You are proposing that thousands of researchers, over the span of over forty years, have banded together to cover up differences tied to the sex of a person. You are proposing a conspiracy theory.

You haven’t disputed that the study I linked to was designed to find a pre-determined conclusion and is therefore bad science.

I’ll gladly agree without even bothering to look at the actual study. I can afford to be charitable, when I have 263 more studies on my side, as well as the statistical departments of several governments and international organizations.

Excellent. If we lived in an egalitarian society, then there should be no wage gap; if we lived in a patriarchy, then there should be a wage gap. Therefore you can falsify patriarchy by looking for a wage gap, and failing to find one. This means patriarchy is not a doctrine, as you claim, but a theory. Thank you, for proving yourself wrong.

Much of the wage gap in older people is due to 1960s and earlier gender roles, in younger people, due to taking time off to have children, working less hours, working part time more, etc.

Things that are socialized, but not impossible to correct for. Except you can’t correct for it at the company level. You can only correct for it at the socialization level – and this includes making caregiving entirely gender-neutral, including custody after divorces. This includes removing attitudes of men-as-pedophiles, which are rather recent. This includes changing mating attitudes wherein women supply beauty and men supply money and increase their value this way – or men will always have more incentive to work more. This includes changing attitudes whereas men need to think of others before themselves, especially financially – and where they are allowed to put quality of life at the top of their priorities without suffering a huge social status hit for it.

Those issues could exist in a non-patriarchy. Nothing says they couldn’t. It only need have a historical division of labor, and consider half of people human beings, valuable for their existence, and the other half human doings, valuable for their utility.

Patriarchy is a doctrine, not a theory, because you just arbitrarily made up this wage gap criteria.

If I found a region, country, state, or what have you, where most people at the top (CEOs and the likes) are men, while there is no wage gap, you won’t claim this isn’t a patriarchy. Or will you?

I’ll gladly agree without even bothering to look at the actual study. I can afford to be charitable, when I have 263 more studies on my side, as well as the statistical departments of several governments and international organizations.

Or are they in on the conspiracy?

Aren’t they part of patriarchy. So, yes they are part of the conspiracy.

The conspiracy to make male problems look non-existent by not asking men about their problems in most areas (DV, rape, juvenile prostitution, trafficking), by treating the areas where men obviously do have problems as anomalies (homelesness, poverty without safety nets), not worth looking at, or inherent to biology (like the life expectancy gap).

Patriarchy is complicit in making sure ONLY women are seen as victims, and men as non-victims. Because then men are more easily controlled.

Women are controlled by fear, told they have to fear every moment they are outside.
Men are controlled by shame, made to feel like nothing if they don’t conform to a narrow script (which includes protecting women, while having no sense of self-preservation as men). And disposed of if they pose further problems.

It’s classic divide and conquer tactic, to obscure who the real puppeteer is, oligarchy. They exploit the common people’s labor, for peanuts, make billions, and maintain their lifestyle by preventing rebellion of the poor, through small-enough (as in cheap) but-good-enough incentives. Bread and games was that.

If we lived in an egalitarian society, then there should be no wage gap; if we lived in a patriarchy, then there should be a wage gap.

Not necessarily. The wage gap is a very crude measure. Income does not equal wealth. Most people live in couples and families, and their earnings are shared, so the lower-earning partner does not necessarily have a lower standard of living or less spending power than the higher earning partner. In fact, women in the west control and spend more money than men, regardless of who earns it, so the wage gap is at least balanced by other factors by which wealth is redistributed from men to women. Looking at the wage gap in isolation, without considering such other factors, is another example of confirmation bias.

A society with no wage gap at all would be a society that didn’t procreate. During the later stages of pregnancy, and the recovery period after birth, a woman’s ability to work and earn is diminished. She must therefore be financially supported, and that money has to come from somewhere. Whether it comes from her partner, or as maternity pay from her employer, or through state benefits funded by taxation, it’s generated by the work of others, who will be more male than female because men can’t have babies (which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans). So it’s unavoidable – statistically, men will earn more, to make up for those periods when women can’t.

In reality, the wealth redistribution from men to women goes much further than that. Paid maternity leave goes way beyond the later stages of pregnancy and the recovery period after birth, and paid paternity leave is much less generous if it exists at all. The courtship dance involves a man demonstrating his financial resources, from paying for dates to engagement rings, adding extra social pressure for a man to earn more so he can afford the socially required redistribution to a woman. There is no equivalent pressure on women to demonstrate their resources to men.

These factors are diminishing, and the wage gap is narrowing, but some women respond to this by wondering where the “good men” have gone, proclaiming the “end of men” and a “crisis of masculinity”, so the effects of this move towards equality are not universally welcomed by women: one aspect of the expected male gender role is one of providing for women, and some women who enjoy the benefits of that are not keen to let it go.

So no, the wage gap in isolation is not diagnostic of a society run by men for the benefit of men and to the detriment of women, which is what I understand by the feminist term “patriarchy”.

No, silly, I was presenting a more mainstream feminist view of rape to counter Fogg’s example. If you want more than one example, with footnotes, have at it.

I note that the more mainstream feminist view of rape you presented does not consider it rape if a man is made to penetrate someone else by force or without his consent. I also note that they go ahead and assume a male perpetrator and female victim in their discussions.

By defining disadvantages of maleness as actually being ADVANTAGES of maleness

This is clearly not what I’m doing and may I be at fault because perhaps I wasn’t clear.

The disadvantages are borne of the ideologies and philosophies, such as gender essentialism and patriarchy, not necessarily of the advantages themselves, because both advantage and disadvantage stem from this same individuality neutering gender generalities. This will lead to both privilege and disprivilege and is not at all dependent on which side is currently privileged or disprivileged, but depends on the source, the rationale, of there being privilege in the first place.

Patriarchy – Literally means the rule of the father and is generally understood within feminist discourses in a dualistic sense as asserting the domination of all men over all women in equal terms.

Sure sounds like what I said.

If you take it out of context, sure. But a quick glance at that page reveals it’s a quote from someone else, and surrounded by text that makes it clear that “all men over all women” means “the average of all men over the average of all women” instead of the “every man over every woman” you so desperately hope it means.

Schala @7.11:

I’ve been more in contact with trans feminism than you, I presume. I know the truth of my experience, and feminist theory as a whole very much is anti-male. It blames masculinity, wether because of socialization or testosterone, for all ills, for all wars, for all violence, for all rapes.

And yet you don’t provide a single damn bit of evidence to back that up, and you don’t even attempt to discuss the evidence I’ve provided that contradicts your statements.

This is what you’re reduced to? Quote-mining a page I previously linked to, and bleating your claims over and over in the face of contradictory evidence and calls to merely demonstrate some validity to what you say? All the creationists I’ve encountered had the good sense to run away before reaching this stage of desperation. You should take their hint.

If you take it out of context, sure. But a quick glance at that page reveals it’s a quote from someone else, and surrounded by text that makes it clear that “all men over all women” means “the average of all men over the average of all women” instead of the “every man over every woman” you so desperately hope it means.

It’s clear that even this “the average of all men over the average of all women” cannot possibly work.

Why?

They didn’t even look at the problems of the average of all men, ever.

How can you say they got it better if you only look at perks of men, costs of women, and then say it’s all you need to know?

And yet you don’t provide a single damn bit of evidence to back that up, and you don’t even attempt to discuss the evidence I’ve provided that contradicts your statements.

Yawn. The page of Finally Feminism 101 is evidence enough. It’s mainstream feminism’s “go to page” for newbies, and where they refer people who disagree too much with them, or who dare question founding principles of patriarchy theory.

gendertrender blog and I Blame The Patriarchy are considered weird, radical (in both meanings), and not mainstream…but guess what, it’s still considered wholly feminist. Man-hating is thus considered acceptable, as long as you do or advocate good stuff for women. Talk shit about men, maleness of masculinity? No problem, man. Mary Daly got condemned for her transphobia, not her misandry. And she certainly wasn’t declared anti-feminist for it.

PUAs and MGTOW and right-wing MRAs have been cutoff from the movement, not just declared to be the black sheep you should ignore but is still family. And I still disavow membership with the MRM generally. I agree with individual things, in individual discussions. I dislike labels, and none fit me right, politically.

I note that the more mainstream feminist view of rape you presented does not consider it rape if a man is made to penetrate someone else by force or without his consent.

Oh yeah. The very first paragraph:

Although the proper definition of ‘rape’ is itself a matter of some dispute, rape is generally understood to involve sexual penetration of a person by force and/or without that person’s consent. Rape is committed overwhelmingly by men and boys, usually against women and girls, and sometimes against other men and boys. (For the most part, this entry will assume male perpetrators and female victims.)

Which sounds horrible; what about all those men who are forced to penetrate someone else? Well, we have a term for that: sexual assault. So all those incidents where a woman forces a man to penetrate her are still counted, they just aren’t counted as rapes. (Canada, in contrast to the USofA, yanked the term “rape” from its lawbook to make things fairer to men. Again, thank feminists for that one.)

How often do these occur? Well, I dug up some stats on that. Of the men who were sexually assaulted, a mere 5.9% were enveloped by women. In comparison, the most popular forced acts were oral sex (59.3%) and touching (24%). In fact, more men were forced to anally penetrate than be enveloped (6.6%)! If you add in the fact that roughly 10% of sex assault victims are male, then envelopment only occurs in 0.6% of all assaults.

I think you see why “rape” by vagina tends to be neglected, in favor of more common scenarios.

Oh, and by the way: 93.7% of all people who sexually assaulted men and boys… were men. 89.5% of all assailants were heterosexual, too, so I don’t want to see any gay bashing here.

How often do these occur? Well, I dug up some stats on that. Of the men who were sexually assaulted, a mere 5.9% were enveloped by women. In comparison, the most popular forced acts were oral sex (59.3%) and touching (24%). In fact, more men were forced to anally penetrate than be enveloped (6.6%)! If you add in the fact that roughly 10% of sex assault victims are male, then envelopment only occurs in 0.6% of all assaults.

Last 12 months female victims of rape (= penetration) 1.1% of all women, or 1,270,000.
Last 12 months male victims of forced to penetrate (= envelopment) 1.1% of all men, or 1,267,000.

Perpetrators of made to penetrate on male victims = 80% female perpetrators.

Here it says roughly 50% of sexual assault victims are male. And 40% of perpetrators are female.

And 12 months rate is the more likely to be right (than the lifetime rate), because it’s easier to recall what happened this year, than your entire existence. Especially if you only ever recently conceptualized it was even POSSIBLE to be assaulted sexually, after being ignored for decades of rape advocacy.

Which sounds horrible; what about all those men who are forced to penetrate someone else? Well, we have a term for that: sexual assault. So all those incidents where a woman forces a man to penetrate her are still counted, they just aren’t counted as rapes

Which is used by some, including the very CDC I cite up there, to not count made to penetrate as serious violence. It’s counted in the same category as groping, voyeurism, and that kind of stuff, not rape-serious stuff. As such, rape crisis centers can then say male victims don’t need rape services, look at how tiny their ratio of rape is… circular tautological reasoning.

Men are not victims of rape because we defined them that way. And then we can claim men cause most rape, and ignore male rape victims and female perpetrators, by defining them as lesser violence or grouping them in categories comprising lesser violence (and then ignoring this category entirely). Thus we can continue our narrative of male perpetrators and female victims, just like we did since the Victorian era.
~ The Patriarchy, now with added radfems.

Feminism is and should be a movement of women, for women and led by women. While any man can offer a voice of agreement, it is not for us to define the issues and prescribe the solutions. And with whom should we agree?

I’m sorry, but this is an incredibly stupid point of view. And I would say it’s blatantly sexist against men. Feminism is and should be a movement led by people, for people and led by people.

Men have been in feminist movement from the beginning and you are insulting and marginalizing every last one of them. Stupid stupid stupid.

I’m sorry, but this is an incredibly stupid point of view. And I would say it’s blatantly sexist against men. Feminism is and should be a movement led by people, for people and led by people.

Then you likely haven’t seen what happens when someone (man or woman or other) wants to bring up issues affecting men from within a feminist perspective.

He’s essentially told to listen and shut up, and have the same opinion as The Collective, or it’s just proof of his misogyny and patriarchal mindset of wanting to control women. He can’t lead an initiative, it would be taking the place of a woman. He can’t voice strong disagreement, or disagreement with core tenets of feminism (the patriarchy kind, not the equality kind) without being told he’s talking over and silencing women.

As a trans woman, I get a very-slight pass over this. Instead I’m told it’s my male privilege of being raised like someone assigned male when young, and that it’s all false consciousness making me disagree. It’s basically impossible for me to think things through and reach a different conclusion through logical processes. It has to be a flawed process. I get a slight pass because some (not all) consider me a woman, and I “win” oppress olympics by being trans, so shutting me out would be seen as bad. Some see my being trans as double reason to shoo me out though. I’m an invader! Fortunately they’re a minority…though still accepted as feminists.

And cis women who disagree? It depends to which degree they do. On what topic. But typically they get the most leeway. If they’re declared heretics, they’ve done much worse “sin” than a similarly cast out man. But hating men, manhood or masculinity is not considered a sin, at all. Some consider it “healthy” to hate on “the oppressor”.

I’ve given you numerous examples of rape crisis centre that help men, including centres that help men exclusively. Also, I don’t think you know what tautological reasoning is; the idea that men can’t be raped long predates the collection of sexual assault data.

Then you likely haven’t seen what happens when someone (man or woman or other) wants to bring up issues affecting men from within a feminist perspective.

He’s essentially told to listen and shut up, and have the same opinion as The Collective, or it’s just proof of his misogyny and patriarchal mindset of wanting to control women.

Over the past few weeks, you’ve been ask several times to justify this. I say that as a man who has spoken about male issues in feminist spaces. Hell, of the reasons Ally’s blog was brought to FTB (the feminazi hivemind of the internet) in the first place was his focus on men’s issues.

Hjornbeck

How often do these occur? Well, I dug up some stats on that.

The stats you have are from sexual assault agencies; in other words, they depend on men themslves recognizing their incident as sexual assault or rape, and reporting it. It’s not a particularly dependable way to collect representative data.

I’ve given you numerous examples of rape crisis centre that help men, including centres that help men exclusively. Also, I don’t think you know what tautological reasoning is; the idea that men can’t be raped long predates the collection of sexual assault data.

And wars predate the US, they can still be blamed for perpetuating them, especially if they (the rape crisis stuff) claim to fight such old attitudes.

What proportion of rape crisis centers help men, with actual counseling and similar services offered to their women clients, and treat male victims of adult rape (not just adult male victims of child rape – as is common apparently)?

Over the past few weeks, you’ve been ask several times to justify this. I say that as a man who has spoken about male issues in feminist spaces. Hell, of the reasons Ally’s blog was brought to FTB (the feminazi hivemind of the internet) in the first place was his focus on men’s issues.

Disagree with feminism on Salon, Feministe, Feministing, Jezebel, Alas, on stuff considered dogmatic (unquestionable) and you’re likely to be called: a troll, a MRA, a man, a misogynist, a basement dweller, a wife beater, a rapist, against women’s rights, against equality. Even by moderators.

I hadn’t even HEARD of FTB until Donlgegate by the way. And I’m generally a skeptic and agnostic (not religious one bit).

And wars predate the US, they can still be blamed for perpetuating them, especially if they (the rape crisis stuff) claim to fight such old attitudes.

I didn’t deny this; you’re wasting your time.

Though I would like to point out that rape crisis centres set the stage for dealing with rape at all; expecting them to get it right immediately seems uneralistic.

What proportion of rape crisis centers help men, with actual counseling and similar services offered to their women clients, and treat male victims of adult rape (not just adult male victims of child rape – as is common apparently)?

I don’t know, why don’t you tell me? The fact that you need to ask me for evidence for your own claim is problematic, to say the least.

Disagree with feminism on Salon, Feministe, Feministing, Jezebel, Alas, on stuff considered dogmatic (unquestionable) and you’re likely to be called: a troll, a MRA, a man, a misogynist, a basement dweller, a wife beater, a rapist, against women’s rights, against equality. Even by moderators.

Nope. All of this is false, because I assert it so (I can see why you argue like this; it’s much easier).

Though I would like to point out that rape crisis centres set the stage for dealing with rape at all; expecting them to get it right immediately seems uneralistic.

It was EXTREMELY EASY for them to get it right. A 5 years old would have gotten it right. No, it “made more sense” to make up theories about how rape is subjugation of women by men, in order to perpetuate patriarchy…

Why not “we service all victims of rape, it can happen to everyone”? It’s super super simple.

I don’t know, why don’t you tell me? The fact that you need to ask me for evidence for your own claim is problematic, to say the least.

If it exists in the UK, I’ll presume 1% of all. Like their DV shelters for men.

Jacob Schmidt: Forgive me if I’m wrong: I’m working off memory here because I can’t be bothered trawling back through the thread, but didn’t you agree earlier that that there probably aren’t enough services available to male victims? Surely you agree that the examples you have provided do not count as evidence against Schala’s assertions? And I agree with you that they are assertions for now but since you agree (if I remember properly) that male services are rare then what does that matter?

If this is so then isn’t asking for references from Schala rather disingenuous? If you already agree on the crucial point isn’t asking for references a deflection and silencing tactic?

P.S I agree that Schala’s case re: “Disagree with feminism on Salon, Feministe, Feministing, Jezebel, Alas, on stuff considered dogmatic (unquestionable) and you’re likely to be called: a troll, a MRA, a man, a misogynist, a basement dweller, a wife beater, a rapist, against women’s rights, against equality. Even by moderators.” would be strengthened by a link to an example. I personally don’t need one because I’ve seen it myself. The fact that Ally references the “basement dweller” accusation on the Maelstrom thread shows he’s seen at least that one as well. And I’m willing to suspend disbelief that you haven’t seen at least some of these examples for now, and that you are being honest in your interactions, but at some point the endless requests for citations for every minor thing becomes nothing but a silencing tactic to deflect any criticism of feminism and feminists. At some point you will need to go and educate yourself about feminism.

I’m working off memory here because I can’t be bothered trawling back through the thread, but didn’t you agree earlier that that there probably aren’t enough services available to male victims?

Schala asserted that their were no services for male victims outside the UK. “Not Enough” and “none” are two different things.

If this is so then isn’t asking for references from Schala rather disingenuous? If you already agree on the crucial point isn’t asking for references a deflection and silencing tactic?

Asking someone to justify their hyperbolic assertions is not a silencing tactic.

Emphasis mine:

And I’m willing to suspend disbelief that you haven’t seen at least some of these examples for now, and that you are being honest in your interactions, but at some point the endless requests for citations for every minor thing becomes nothing but a silencing tactic to deflect any criticism of feminism and feminists. At some point you will need to go and educate yourself about feminism.

Interesting. It was asserted up thread by Schala that “go educate yourself” is a silencing tactic:

“You’ll be asked/told that every time you disagree. Because you couldn’t possibly come to another conclusion through a logical process, but only through ignorance.”

Notice the absolute there (i.e. every time)? Notice how Schala isn’t merely asserting her own experience, but the experience of most anyone who disagrees with a feminist idea? This is not a minor thing. I could accept it as her own experience; fuck, I already have.

Here it says roughly 50% of sexual assault victims are male. And 40% of perpetrators are female.

Which demonstrates you haven’t even read the study you link to, which says:

Nearly 1 in 5 women in the United States has been raped in her lifetime (18.3%) (Table 2.1). This translates to almost 22 million women in the United States. […]

Nearly 1 in 2 women (44.6%) and 1 in 5 men (22.2%) experienced sexual violence victimization
other than rape at some point in their lives (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). This equates to more than 53 million women and more than 25 million men in the United States.

I can’t find that 40% listed anywhere in the document.

But I missed a key detail on my first scan of that 1997 study, which I’ve already quoted here: 5.9% of male victims were “raped” by vagina, while 6.6% were forced to anally penetrate someone. Women could only account for 19% of that 6.6%, at most, because otherwise there wouldn’t be enough female perps to account for rape by vagina (and the number of pre-op transgender men committing rape by vagina is small enough that we can exclude them from the stats).

Which means that at least 48% of all forced penetration was done into men, according to that 1997 study. The NISVS study produces a different number, stating 79.2% of forced penetration was done into women. And yet you claim it’s 100%:

Last 12 months female victims of rape (= penetration) 1.1% of all women, or 1,270,000.
Last 12 months male victims of forced to penetrate (= envelopment) 1.1% of all men, or 1,267,000.

Perpetrators of made to penetrate on male victims = 80% female perpetrators.

In keeping with this blog’s name, you are being heteronormative by assuming penetration can only be done to women. But you are a transgender woman! Not a day goes by when the larger culture shoves some cissexism in your face, reminding you that their definition of “normal” excludes you. Of all people, you should be more aware of the cis and hetro bias you see daily.

And yet in your blind hatred of feminism, you have erased your daily experience. You are endorsing the norms of a culture which at best views you as a freak worthy of othering.

Jacob Schmidt: “Schala asserted that their were no services for male victims outside the UK. “Not Enough” and “none” are two different things.”

She offered percentages. Rounding allows up to 0.49999%. For all we know that’s accurate. But I’m just nitpicking with that reply.

Schala engages in hyperbole, if you haven’t already noticed that. Does it really matter when you agree with her main point that the needs of men aren’t being met by the current situation? Yet you still bring up the fact that you found a couple of websites to argue against her when you could’ve ended this ages ago by pointing out you agreed with her a while back. But no, you keep arguing with her on this point for no discernable reason.

“It was asserted up thread by Schala that “go educate yourself” is a silencing tactic”

Well I’m not Schala, and I try to avoid such absolute statements. “Go educate yourself” is most often used as a silencing tactic. I make an exception when someone seems to be ignorant of something they claim to be a part of or defend and is requiring citations for common knowledge.

So you didn’t actually assume 100%, you just didn’t factor it into the numbers you quoted. Sorry about that!

I still find it quite screwed up that you’d fixate on the penetration numbers for the last twelve months, while completely ignoring the lifetime numbers: they say that roughly 4,317,192 men forced to penetrate women (after applying 79.2%), vs. 21,840,000 women who were raped.

It’s as if you were cherry-picking the numbers to reinforce your pre-existing views…

I still find it quite screwed up that you’d fixate on the penetration numbers for the last twelve months, while completely ignoring the lifetime numbers: they say that roughly 4,317,192 men forced to penetrate women (after applying 79.2%), vs. 21,840,000 women who were raped.

I don’t consider lifetime numbers because even most men don’t consider their lifetime rape experiences as rape. Yes, more than women who don’t. 4 times more.

64% of women who were legally raped as children considered their experience rape.
16% of men who were legally raped as children considered their experience rape.

That’s telling no?

So I prefer the last 12 months number. They’re more recent, more accurate. And male victims could actually CONCEPTUALIZE they have been raped in that year, contrary to well, most of history, where male-on-male is a prison joke, and nothing else even exists (or he’s lucky, and why is he whining about free pussy?). Parent/adult on child has MORE chances of being seen as rape by men, because they can recognize they were powerless then. As adults everyone tells them its impossible.

In keeping with this blog’s name, you are being heteronormative by assuming penetration can only be done to women.

First, you’re reversing the subject and object and using the passive voice for no reason. Those women have raped those men. It’s not “penetration that happened to women”.

Secondly, I have no idea why you say I’m heteronormative in that statement.

But you are a transgender woman! Not a day goes by when the larger culture shoves some cissexism in your face, reminding you that their definition of “normal” excludes you. Of all people, you should be more aware of the cis and hetro bias you see daily.

Transsexual people = 0.2% of people. I can safely be ignored in overall statistics. If trans women were listed in female victims of that year, I would be something like 250 of victims. That’s not a big error margin.

Secondly, trans women can have either a penis, or a vulva. It’s not clear in what category of rape they’re in, wether as perpetrators or as victims, and I don’t care enough about the CDC to go ask them.

And yet in your blind hatred of feminism, you have erased your daily experience. You are endorsing the norms of a culture which at best views you as a freak worthy of othering.

I don’t hate feminism. I’m merely against the parts of it that promote inequality and the continuation of outdated gender roles and privileges for their own benefit. It’s extremely self-interested to only fight the parts you don’t like while keeping the ones you like (female as weak, let’s squash that one…except for DV, rape, murder, and all those evil things – then women are too weak). Your link in “freak worthy of othering” isn’t working, if you had one.

She offered percentages. Rounding allows up to 0.49999%. For all we know that’s accurate. But I’m just nitpicking with that reply.

If we’re being nitpicky, rounding 0.49999% would give ‘0.’ (note the periode), not ‘0’; whole numbers (without the period) are used to denote absolutes. Though I think that may just be a comp sci standard.

Schala engages in hyperbole, if you haven’t already noticed that.

I’m not convinced it’s mere hyperboly. She’s had numerous opportunities to fix such a misunderstanding, and yet usually chooses to defend what she literally said.

Does it really matter when you agree with her main point that the needs of men aren’t being met by the current situation? Yet you still bring up the fact that you found a couple of websites to argue against her when you could’ve ended this ages ago by pointing out you agreed with her a while back. But no, you keep arguing with her on this point for no discernable reason.

You wanna know a good way to keep men from using the sexual assault services they have available? Perpetuate the idea that they don’t exist (through hyperboly or otherwise). The services exist, and in much great prevalence than most (or at least Schala) give credit for. We should be parading these services about at every logical opportunity, not hiding them away to make a rhetorical point.

Well I’m not Schala, and I try to avoid such absolute statements.

That comment wasn’t a rhetorical attack on you. It was just an interesting observation. No need to be defensive.

I make an exception when someone seems to be ignorant of something they claim to be a part of or defend and is requiring citations for common knowledge.

Hah. I see feminists making the same claim. Further, I’m not requiring citations for common knowldge; I’m asking for 1 example of what’s been asserted as happening “every time”.

Schala

64% of women who were legally raped as children considered their experience rape.
16% of men who were legally raped as children considered their experience rape.

The study in question doesn’t ask men to classify their assault as rape. Your stats aren’t as relevant as you think.

I don’t consider lifetime numbers because even most men don’t consider their lifetime rape experiences as rape.

So something isn’t a crime if you don’t think a crime has been committed? Bizarre. And I don’t see those in the associated study. Have a page number handy? Thirdly, uh, wouldn’t those lifetime numbers, collected by a government agency, include “legal” rapes and thus be more accurate than you paint them?

Fourth, what does any of this have to do with feminism? I predicted back in comment 61 that you’d shift the argument around, and here we are. Creationists do the same thing; they’ll pull up some minor nit-pick over clades, and act that by refuting that point they’ve debunked all of evolution. Even if you are absolutely correct about sexual assault statistics, that does not refute the gendered pay gap, gendered stereotypes, biased placement in positions of leadership, or biased media representations.

I don’t hate feminism.

Then why do you consistently lie about and misrepresent mainstream feminist views?

So something isn’t a crime if you don’t think a crime has been committed? Bizarre.

When something isn’t considered a crime, it’s very often the victim who is constructing a scenario where it’s either:

1) enjoyable, so not something that could be criminal
2) their own fault for not defending themselves
3) them getting lucky to get free sex anyways

How would they reconcile that reconstruction with a view that says “were you forced to have sex against your will?”. They would look for records of “violation” in their mind, and since their previous experience was classed as not-something-bad, it’s not recorded, even in surveys. And barely ever to the law.

Thirdly, uh, wouldn’t those lifetime numbers, collected by a government agency, include “legal” rapes and thus be more accurate than you paint them?

I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. The numbers gathered are SOLELY from the study participants, not police from nowhere. Also police number undercount female victims by probably 90%, and male victims by probably 99%. They’re far from accurate.

Even if people consider what happened to them as crimes, charging their perpetrator with it is a whole other ball game.

Even if you are absolutely correct about sexual assault statistics, that does not refute the gendered pay gap, gendered stereotypes, biased placement in positions of leadership, or biased media representations.

This is the “let’s ignore black men, Obama has it so better” argument. Which is stupid.

We should help everyone according to their individual needs. Put the ideology in the trash can, we don’t need it. Server EVERY victim.

Jacob: Yeah, that must be a comp sci standard. In the sciences it would just be ‘0’ (though good practice would also state the number of significant figures afterwards). For the layman just putting’0’ would probably be ok.

“I’m not convinced it’s mere hyperboly. She’s had numerous opportunities to fix such a misunderstanding, and yet usually chooses to defend what she literally said. “

I imagine someone who casually uses hyperbole would get defensive if being challenged constantly on everything. They would think you are being awkward for the sake of it (or to discredit them to distract from their main point) rather than just agreeing with a casual mention that you don’t agree with the hyperbole (this is how I read your replies to Schala). My own reply would be something like “While I think claiming it is 0% is going too far, I agree with the general point you are raising”.

“We should be parading these services about at every logical opportunity, not hiding them away to make a rhetorical point.”

There is merit to that argument. It’s similar in spirit to the one that castigates feminists from promoting inflated risks of rape using stats that are known to be fallacious. There is also merit to the other side: That constantly stating that a few services exist may lead those in power to not treat the issue with the necessary importance. Personally I agree with you: just give the honest figures, as I’m not a fan of political groups fiddling figures to further their goals.

“I see feminists making the same claim.“

Which claim, the exception for those defending something or the ‘common knowledge’ one?

If it’s the first I think that people have a right to criticise a group based on the advocacy of its most influential groups and individuals without having to study all the theory behind it and the various, less significant, factions within that group. On the other hand someone defending a group has a requirement to know who is representing them (with their assent or not) and the kinds of practices that they are engaging in. Schala listed some of the most popular feminist sites, and I would argue that anyone who considers themselves a feminist has a responsibility to make themselves aware of what they are doing.

If it’s the second one (common knowledge) then I think it’s important to differentiate between what is common knowledge society wide and common knowledge ‘for a feminist’. I should’ve made this explicit in my previous post. No part of feminist theory or practices should be common knowledge for a general member of the public who’s annoyed by a sexist proposal by some feminist, because they use the real definition of feminism that 99% of English speakers use and not the dodgy one only feminists use (and no-one else accepts as valid) so they can convince themselves that they aren’t being sexist when they are. Telling this member of the public to go educate themselves is a silencing tactic.

“Further, I’m not requiring citations for common knowldge; I’m asking for 1 example of what’s been asserted as happening “every time”.”

Surely you recognise the ‘burden of proof’ issue in proving that it happens ‘every time’. I would argue that the burden of proof is actually on you in this case. Regardless of my nitpicking, the ‘every time’ is no doubt hyperbole again. I would argue that it happens enough that it is an issue, and that you should already be aware that it occurs.

Just in case it isn’t clear. “If it’s the first I think that people have a right to criticise a group [without being told to ‘go educate themselves’] based on the advocacy of its most influential…”. That criticism may still be wrong but I think it is up to those defending the group to make that case rather than use a silencing tactic such as ‘go educate yourself’.

You really need to amend the entry where you say “To take one example, there are many feminists who argue that there should be no prosecutions of women who make false allegations of rape” because it is untrue and incorrect. The website of the organisation that you link to Women Against Rape are clearly protesting against attitudes that blame victims for being raped. It DOES NOT SAY that women who pretend to be raped should not be prosecuted. The text clearly refers to women who have genuinely been raped because it refers to them as such or uses the word “victim.” It does not refer to women who falsely claim to have been raped. It is clearly not a defence of such women, Women Against Rape are pointing out that women who pretend to be raped are in a tiny minority and the organisation is asserting that someone who reports that they have been rape should not be automatically disbelieved.
It is unfair of you to misrepresent people’s views in this way.

I’m afraid that’s just flat-out wrong. The page I link to includes WAR’s open letter to the DPP which says:

We strongly believe that the prosecution of women for alleged false allegations of rape is not in the public interest.

That’s clear as day. WAR wants there to be no prosecution of women who have allegedly made false allegations. They have campaigned on that for decades and their position has been repeated in newspaper articles, submissions to parliamentary select committees and other lobbying channels.

And FWIW whenever I’ve seen any sort of debate on this, there have been significant numbers of feminists who are not WAR-affiliated saying yes, I agree.

I doubt it is a majority of feminists who agree, but it is a significant proportion.

You write an interesting and thought-provoking essay for sure. I wish I could present my points against feminism as calmly as you; however, being female, I am directly affected by the success or failure of a women’s liberation movement, and I think the movement has done me little good personally. I know that it is short-sighted to view such things from a “what’s in it for me” perspective, but there you go.

A lot of my resentment toward feminism has to do with how they as a group handled the issue of economic oppression, perhaps intentionally, precisely BECAUSE it affects more than just white women. I believe that feminists are not correct about why women are unequal at work, why they make less money, why there is a stigma against working mothers, why the vast majority of low-wage jobs go to women, etc. I believe that socialists’ views toward the issues of inequality in the workplace are more correct. I don’t think women are discriminated against because we are female, per se, nor do I feel that the stereotypical “white male” whom we are compared against has it so much better. I believe that MOST of us (and in America, for sure, as you probably know) are thought of as chattel by the members of the 0.1% owning class, and in some situations, white men just happen to be a little higher on the totem pole of scut. Much is made of women’s progress and “the end of men” in our brainless American media. People are not digging down into the numbers and seeing what’s really going on. Women have not risen over the past decade, so much as men have sunk.

This is not to say I am some right-winger or men’s rights crusader. It is simply to say that when I survey the landscape in a world after feminism, I see very little to like. In addition to my wages and right to collectively bargain both being at an all-time low, my healthcare costs are at an all-time high and pay for nothing. In more than half of the states in the embarrassment known as America, I have essentially no right to opt out of functioning as a broodmare for the state. I don’t even have the right to privacy or freedom of speech, as the NSA and other departments may now surveil me at will.

My biggest complaint about feminism goes beyond the idea that it wasn’t inclusive enough. I am angry that, as a group, American feminists stopped having any relevant ideas after Betty Friedan. It became an ideology of victimhood, and continued in that direction, until today. Now, it is hard to give a damn about the movement, when so much of it consists of women writing essays about whether or not they should shave their pubic hair, and complaining about an off-color remark on Twitter.

It’s not just a form of the fallacy called the appeal to nature, but also just plain wrong, since non-heterosexuality is also natural, and since this simplistic type of world-view relies on gender essentialism.

Being heterosexual is the norm and it always will be.

Leaving aside that you are speculating when you claim it always will be the norm, I note that being right-handed is also the norm.

I love poofs and dykes as much as anyone else, but they’ll always be different from the norm.

I respect highly-intelligent and highly-ethical people, but they’ll always be different from the norm.

(Does the existence of people who are not normal in every respect bother you?)